broadsheet on contemporary politics · implementation has been the question of land acquisition....

Broadsheet on

Contemporary

Politics

Volume 1, No 3 (Quarterly) Bilingual (English and Telugu) January 2012 Donation : Rs. 15/-

SEZ Policy, Economics and Politics

• Editorial• Impact of land grants to industries

K.Balagopal• Industrialization for the people, by the people, of the people

Amit Bhaduri and Medha Patkar• Revisiting the policy debate Aradhana Aggarwal• SEZ’s have nothing to do with land acquisition

Interview with Kamalnath, Minister for Commerce andIndustry

• Village common landsHRF pamphlet

• A representation filed before A.P.H.R.C. against theKakinada SEZ

Contents • Interview with Rajendra - anti SEZ activist in NelloreK. Srinivasulu, R.Srivatsan, A.Suneetha, G.Shyamala

••••• Hope and Disillusionment for Workers in Apache SEZ,Tada, NelloreS. Seetha Lakshmi

• Land acquisitions, law and public purposeN.Vasudha

• Eminent domain : a backgrounderR.Srivatsan

• China’s Special Economic Zones at 30Y.Yeung, J.Lee and G.KeeResponses to the broad sheet on the Nizam

• Letter to the Editor T. Hanuman Chowdary• Hyderabad before and after 17th September 1948

Keshavrao Jadhav

Guest Editors : K.Srinivasulu, N.Vasudha

Resident Editors : A.Suneetha, R.Srivatsan, M.A.Moid

Advisory Board: Sheela Prasad, Aisha Farooqi, Rama Melkote, K.Sajaya, P.Madhavi, B.Syamasundari, Susie Tharu, UmaBhrugubanda, Veena Shatrugna, D.Vasanta, K.Lalita, N.Vasudha, Gogu Shyamala, V.Usha

Production: A.Srinivas, T.Sreelakshmi

Published by: Anveshi Research Centre for Women’s Studies, 2-2-18/49, D.D. Colony, Hyderabad - 500 013

The contents of this broadsheet reflect the data, perspectives and opinions of the contributors and guest editors.

Anveshi Broadsheet - January 2012-2

Editorial

The SEZ Act 2005 was passed by theIndian parliament with hardly anydebate and came into effect from

February 2006. Ever since, there has been anunprecedented speed with which proposalshave been received and responded to. By 2008,740 SEZs have received various levels ofapproval: 172 SEZs are notified; 404 formallyapproved; and, 165 have received in principleapproval ( Union Ministry of Commerce andIndustry cited in Seminar February 2008.)

The SEZ policy has given rise to a sharplypolarised debate. It is one of few policy issuesthat have given rise to intense politicalcontestation and high-pitched debate inpresent times. If the pro-SEZ argument iscentred around the claims that the SEZs wouldbring in investments, lead to the properutilisation of natural resources, generateemployment, and result in the development ofthe region, then all these claims are subjectedto critical scrutiny in the anti-SEZ discourse.The issues in contestation range across thenature and quantum of land acquired,methods of acquisition, land use pattern,displacement of the local population, adverseimpact on local economy, migration fromoutside and its impact on the social andcultural life.

The quantum of land estimated to be requiredfor the SEZs in the country is around 1,26,077hectares (Banerjee-Guha 2008). Most of this isprosperous multi-cropped agricultural landlocated in areas with developed infrastructure,implying a lower development cost for theSEZ developers. SEZs will adversely affectaround 1.2 million people dependent onagriculture. The erosion of the agrarianeconomy would in turn lead to the decline ofrural artisanal communities and service castes.Conversion of farm land on such a scalewould lead to a serious threat to food securityin the long run. Thus, the whole question ofthe model of development underlying theSEZs and its environmental impact isinterrogated and alternative model that putspeople over corporate profit is proposed. Theexcerpt from the piece by Medha Patkar andAmit Bhaduri focuses on this issue.

If there is an overwhelming response on thepart of different state governments to theSEZs, then the fact of popular resistance,though uneven in terms of intensity, expanseand mobilisation cannot be ignored. WestBengal, which saw a violent protest in theform of Nandigram and Goa, with its non-violent popular mobilization, stand out asunique cases in the resistance to SEZs as themodel of development.

To understand the context of the SEZs, itwould be instructive to briefly sketch theprocesses of rural decline at least in its broadcontours in the post-Green revolution ruralpolitical economy. Firstly, the increasedrapidity in the pace of rural disintegration hasled to the breaking down of mutualinterdependence between the peasantry,artisan and service castes (which existeddespite an inbuilt sense of caste hierarchy anddominance). The sense of loss becomes acutebecause the decline of this world has not led tothe emergence of a world of freedom,employment and harmony. Secondly, thecrisis of post- green revolution agriculture haspaved the way for the move of the dominantpeasant caste families and their surplus wealthto urban businesses like food processing, theservice sector, real estate, etc. It has also led tothe flight of farmers with small land holdingsencountering increasingly unsustainableconditions for agriculture in the liberalizingmarket economy. The declining support of thestate both to the farming and artisanal sectors(most importantly handloom industry whichis a major employer after agriculture) has onlyworsened the crisis in these sectors as evidentin the increasing suicides of farmers andweavers in the country. The rural distress canbe seen best captured in the balladeer GoretiVenkanna’s song Palle Kanneeru Peduthondi.

This process has an impact on the shaping ofthe resistance to the SEZs.

Most of the analyses of the state in liberalizingIndia seem to work with a standard model ofthe neo-liberal state. However, it is importantto understand that this state is an evolvingspecies rather than a finished product. Its storyis a transitional one. Along with other factors,its trajectory is significantly determined bythe emerging interface and contradictionsbetween the city and country, agriculture andindustry. It is driven by the general desire tomove away from a rural milieu steeped in thepathos of a dying agriculture, to escapetraditional entanglements of caste and class,and by aspirations and imagined prospects ofa future of freedom and identity outside thevillage.

The liberalizing Indian state seems to use thismélange of popular angst, compulsions,desires and hopes that are the result of itsdevelopmentalism as an anchor to pursue itsneo-liberal agenda. In this general orientation,the SEZ policy forms a high priority initiativelaunched with the promise of investments,technology, infrastructure, fillip to exports,and of course generation of employment. Thecontestations and conflicts generated by theSEZ policy in fact demonstrate how the role ofthe state in the liberalization process, insteadof diminishing, has shifted in favour of thecorporate class. The liberalizing state hasbecome the principal cause of the aboveprocess leading to the emergence of a newphase of rural unrest and conflicts.

The most contentious issue in the SEZ policyimplementation has been the question of landacquisition. Though land question forms thecentral issue it brings into focus a range ofproblems that are related to land likelivelihoods, habitat, access to resources,environment, etc. Thus the contestation doesnot involve merely the land owning classesbut in fact the whole of rural population – thefarm labour, the artisan communities, fisherpeople, service castes, etc.

The more than century old Land AcquisitionAct (1894) deploys two crucial categories of‘eminent domain’ and ‘public purpose’ in thejustification of state power for land acquisition(See Srivatsan’s and Vasudha’s essays in thiscollection). The concept of eminent domainrefers to the sovereign authority of the state toacquire privately owned land to serve a publicpurpose. Public purpose in the context of thisact is understood in its straight transparentmeaning of serving the larger social need andpublic utility like laying road and rail lines,building schools and hospitals, constructingirrigation projects. For this reason, the powerbestowed on the state by the principle ofeminent domain did not lead to any erosion ofthe legitimacy of the state despite thechallenges from the dominant landed classes.In fact, the land acquisition act of 1894 couldgive rise to litigation only on two grounds:when the due process of law was not followedand proper compensation was not awarded forthe land acquired.

In contrast, the current SEZ policy suffers froman explicit deficit of trust: Firstly, there is noclearly defined ‘public’ character to thepurpose for which land is sought to beacquired. It is quite clear that the only purposeit would serve is the interest of developersand the unit owners seeking profits in suchventures. Secondly, in most cases, thesedevelopers and the state agencies involved inthe acquisition find the due process of lawquite cumbersome and also display a sense ofnonchalance towards the law and the rights ofthe land owners, all the more so if theyhappen to be non-influential and vulnerable.The due process of law, as Vasudha argues,demands that land acquisition be transparent.It requires the agencies to issue notificationsto the people from whom land is to beacquired, conduct a public hearing after duenotification, invite objections, survey theimpact of land acquisition on the livelihoods,environment, fix compensation, etc. All this isseen as time consuming, leading to atendency to find shortcuts using statemachinery: more often than not, local officialsand police bully the landowners to fall in lineand give in to the acquisition.

The land acquisition is sought to belegitimized by suggesting that the landsacquired are waste lands and low quality drylands and that these lands could be put to


good use by being allocated to the industriesand projects. In the case of assigned lands, thestate asserts its right to reacquire them fromthe beneficiaries who belong to the dalit andother lower castes whenever it needs. AsBalagopal (see this collection) argues thenotion of ‘waste land’ is not only fallaciousbut also displays a phenomenal ignorance.More, it also shows duplicity on the part of thegovernment which wants to obscure thesignificance of the already depleting commons– poramboku, bancharayi, karijkatha lands - inpeople’s community life and livelihoodpatterns. A similar logic was deployed in Goawhich has huge communidad lands. Equallyatrocious is the case of the ‘dry lands’ categoryin revenue records. As for instance, theKakinada experience shows, the lands shownas dry and low yielding ones are those whichhave been subsequently improved and havebeen providing substantial incomes to thepeasants through commercial crops likecashew, casuarina, mango and coconut. Thusthe notion of waste land hides more than itreveals: What is at stake is the life, habitat andlivelihood of farmers, agricultural labour,other occupational communities and in thecoastal regions of fisher people.

It is possible to identify a pattern in theacquisition of land from farmers with slightvariations in the modus operandi of thegovernment agencies and private developers.While the statutory formalities stipulated inthe land acquisition act are apparentlyadhered to, it is the ‘informal’ efforts of thegovernment agencies and their street-levelbureaucracy that highlights their hyper-activeinitiative in the acquisition process. It beginswith the identification of the big andinfluential landowners, who no longer have aprincipal stake in agriculture and havedeveloped significant urban business interests.The government and the SEZ developer thenstrikes a deal to settle compensation throughwhat is known as a ‘consent award’. Bywinning the influential absentee land ownersto their side through the government the SEZdevelopers easily pressurize small farmers toacquiesce to sell their lands.

The role of local revenue administration, itmay be noted, is crucial in pressurizingfarmers to concede, without resistance, to theestablishment of an SEZ. Using their quid proquo connections with the local pyravikaars andthe Panchayat Raj functionaries, the low levelbureaucracy of the revenue departmentspreads the message that there is no point inresisting land acquisition as the governmenthas the supreme power to acquire ‘any land,anywhere, any time’. If the farmers resist thenthey may lose an opportunity to bargain forbetter compensation. The instances of even thelocal MLAs being involved in the SEZ dealsthrough their ‘men’ are not rare (Srinivasulu:Forthcoming).

The dominant view on both sides of thespectrum is characterised by certain simplisticassumptions: a) the state and its institutionsare uniformly in favour of the SEZ policy and;b) the popular classes are against it. The pointto be noted is that the picture is much morecomplex and differentiated and cannot bereduced to simplistic generalisations.

The following factors could be seen tocontribute to this complexity on thegovernment side. The first is the increasingvisibility of differences/ conflicts between thethree branches of legislature, executive andjudiciary. In these the growing tensionbetween the executive and legislatureconstitutes one aspect, and the pro-active andexpanding jurisdiction of the judiciary interms of policy initiative, execution andsupervision, another. Though the higherjudiciary has not shown an inclination tointerfere in the broad macro policy frame, itsintervention has been quite significant inexposing scams and scandals of corruptionthat are a fall-outs of neo-liberal policies.

The second factor on the government side isrelated to intra-governmental tensions. Quitecontrary to the assumption that the differentministries and policy bodies of thegovernment would be governed by a coherentuniform perspective, there is enough evidenceto show the increasing differences ofperception and opinion on issues. This couldbe seen as reflective of the political pluralityin the coalitional government at the centre.The more intriguing aspect is related to thefact of decisive policy bodies differing withkey governmental policy decisions in terms ofperception, opinion and judgment. Nothingdemonstrates this better than the SEZ policyon which the Planning Commission and theRBI differed with the perspective of the UnionCommerce ministry and chose to treat theSEZs as real estate ventures. The interviewwith Minister for Commerce, and the excerptsfrom the pronouncements of the RBIGovernor, Vice-Chairman PlanningCommission, the Congress party chief and aninfluential neoliberal economist highlight thisdimension.

It is therefore necessary to attempt a nuancedanalysis of the policy discourse andimplementation keeping the fact ofdifferences, tensions and conflicts along theinstitutional, regime and policy lines thanunproblematically assume singularity anduniformity. In these contestations and conflictswithin the state terrain one can identity spacesof interventions for subaltern communities.

On the other hand, the anti-SEZ resistance tothe SEZs is neither uniform nor consistent as itis often sought to be suggested. It is necessaryto recognize that the popular resistance ischaracterized by internal differentiation,asymmetries and ambiguities. The differentialresponses, mobilizations and degrees of

protest are to be made sense of against theabove backdrop of post-green revolutiondevelopments. The clue to the differentialnature, intensity and expanse of resistance,asymmetries in social support andambiguities in the articulation of demandsand slogans have to seen against the backdropof the emergent rural-urban interface acrossthe states and regions.

These struggles have been waged by thevictims of corporate capitalist development,drawing largely on the local resources withsome help from the civil societyorganizations. However, civil libertiesorganizations and the NGOs and largelyvulnerable to the machinations of politicalsociety and subjected to the repressive arm ofthe state. As the activist Rajendra says (thiscollection), the fact that the instances ofsuccesses against the state and corporateinterests are not too insignificant thereforedeserve attention and analysis. The case ofNandigram in West Bengal and Goa where theSEZs were annulled by the state governmentshow that there have been successfulchallenges which the state and policy makerscannot simply ignore. It goes to the credit ofthe popular resistance, that despite the state’srelentless pursuance of the policies leading tocontinual physical displacement, the state’sfailure to displace these people (i.e., makethem invisible) in policy discourse is quitestriking.

It is these instances of successful resistance thatcontinue to inspire the anti-SEZ struggles inthe country.

It is sad to note that despite the significance ofthe issues arising from the SEZ policy and itsimplementation, the media reportage, both inthe print and electronic, especially in thevernacular media, has not been satisfactory. Ithas been largely episodic and event specific.The lack of depth is largely because of a lackof appreciation of the complexity of theproblem – the context, analytical conceptualframes and structural relations.

This broad sheet on SEZs seeks to highlightsome issues of these issues in SEZ politics,economics and policy. It is put together toserve as a ready reference for media people,civil society groups, NGOs, grassroot activists,students in the social sciences and all thosepeople who are interested in/ concerned withthe SEZ issue and with peoples’ initiatives.

K. Srinivasulu on behalf of the Guest Editorial Group

References: Banerjee-Guha, Swapna (2008), ‘SpaceRelations of Capital and Significance of NewEconomic Enclaves: SEZs in India’, Economic andPolitical Weekly, November 22.Seminar February 2008Srinivasulu, Karli (Forthcoming), ‘Special EconomicZones, Land Acquisition and Popular Resistance inAndhra Pradesh’ in Rob Jenkin, Loraine Kennedy andPartha Mukhopadhyaya (Eds), Politics of SEZs.


Singur and Nandigram have focused at-

tention on the undesirability of land ac

quisition for industrial purposes in

fertile areas, which are often multi-cropped

land. It has been suggested that grant of land

of poor quality or wasteland to industries is

unproblematic, and will put useless expanses

to good use while protecting agriculture and

the farmers.

While acquisition of fertile lands for industrial

uses undoubtedly causes heartburn in the

farmers and is even otherwise a serious issue

by itself, the alternative suggested is based on

more than one fallacy. The first fallacy is that

there is any waste land at all in India except in

the revenue records. This is not meant in the

ecological sense in which every bit of nature is

part of a whole and you cannot remove one

bit without affecting the rest. The concern is

much more immediate. India is not so rich

that any part of nature will be allowed to

remain unused. People use every bit of nature,

and every time you hear a government say

that a certain expanse of unused government

land has been made over to some company,

you can be sure there are hundreds if not

thousands of people whose needs have been

slighted by default. It would, however, be a

further fallacy to assume that all such use is

desperate in nature and born of abject poverty.

There is the systematic use too, such as the use

of coasts (a typical instance of “wasteland”

belonging in law to the government and

controlled by coastal regulations) by fishing

communities for berthing their boats, drying

their nets, trading their catch and repairing

their implements. Or the use of rock-filled

“wastelands” of the Deccan by stone

quarrying communities (it is the caste

occupation of some of the most backward and

hardy people) to make a living for themselves

by quarrying for the building industry. And

so on.

The second fallacy is to equate the farmers’

agitation against acquisition of arable land

with the agricultural economists’ concern with

loss of farm produce. The latter stresses the

undesirability of loss of multi-cropped land,

whereas for the farmer whose land is taken

away the land is the only source of livelihood,

whether it gives two crops or one or just a

notional crop. The wisdom one has heard

from a range of persons from Sonia Gandhi to

M S Swaminathan, that multi-cropped land

should be exempted from acquisition, would

make no sense whatever to the farmers. If

anything, the compensation that fertile land

would bring may provide alternative

livelihood to the land loser, whereas the

compensation given to poor quality land

would provide none. Ask the farmers of arid

lands and they would say the opposite of these

wise persons: acquire multi-cropped land

because its market value is higher and the

dispossessed landowner can live on the

compensation, but spare us please. At this

point a lot of people will get angry and ask

whether India needs to industrialise or not, as

chief ministers hungry for investments have

been asking. As of now I am not saying

anything on that except to point out that if we

take livelihoods seriously, land grant to

industries is much more problematic than the

crop productivity vs industrial growth debate

would indicate.

The third fallacy is the assumption that the

kind of land grants industries are asking for

these days can be met exclusively from arid or

wastelands. Rule 5(2) of the central rules under

the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) Act wants

that land granted to an SEZ must be

contiguous, and developers who have the

money to invest are asking for nothing less

than 10,000 acres, though the rules permit

smaller SEZs, for they have big money and

want to make bigger money. Even non-SEZ

land grants are huge in size because unlike in

the past when an industrialist would be

satisfied if he got land for the factory site from

the government, in the era of pampered

enterprise they want land for whole

townships, complete with not only residential

quarters for their permanent staff, but clubs

and parks for the sahibs too. And where in

India outside the Thar desert do you get such

huge expanses of wholly waste or arid land

unbroken by irrigated land? If you do, it will

be in some godforsaken wilderness, but our

pushy entrepreneurs want lands as close as

possible to a four-lane highway, electrified

railway line, shipping harbour, airport and a

metropolitan city if possible, so that they may

while away their evenings the better.

That the focus of debate in the country has

been on the undesirability of acquisition of

fertile land for industries is a circumstance

that has helped governments to get away with

grants of huge tracts of land described as

“wasteland where nothing grows and which

no one owns”. Part of the claim is patently

dishonest, for private lands which yield good

income for the farmers are often described as

land of poor quality while approving their

acquisition for industrial uses. But in most

cases the revenue records do show the land to

be wasteland, and therefore presumed to be

unused, but the reality is starkly otherwise.

A well publicised example is the land sought

to be given by the government of Orissa to the

iron and steel project of Pohang Steel Co

(POSCO) in Jagatsinghpur district. Out of the

4,004 acres to be handed over to the project (it

is kept deliberately vague whether this is the

whole of the land grant or only its first phase),

3,566 acres are declared to be government

land, by implication uncultivated and

nobody’s personal property. It is in part forest

land and in part revenue land. Far from being

unused, almost the whole of it bears betel

vines and cashew fruit trees, on which the

landless families of three gram panchayats,

Gadkujang, Dhinkia and Nuvagaon, have been

living for decades. They were entitled to have

their rights officially recognised under the

Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act,

1972 which permits regularisation of

occupation of revenue land by the landless

poor up to one acre per family, and the

recently passed Scheduled Tribes and Other

Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of

Forest rights) Act, 2006 which mandates

regularisation of usufructory rights enjoyed

from prior to December 13, 2005 in the forests,

including reserve forests, by not only

scheduled tribes but others too, provided (in

the case of the others) they have been living

there for three generations.

The people of the three villages are clearly

entitled to the protection of these legal

provisions, but the government of Orissa will

not tell them they have these rights. Instead, it

treats the land in their occupation as its own

unused and unusable property, which can be

assigned to factory sites at will. The people of

the three villages, unwilling to give up the

Impact of Grants to Industries:

Land Unrest in Andhra Pradesh-II

K Balagopal


land that gives them substantial livelihoods,

have barricaded the nine roads that lead to the

area and are ready to battle it out. Even in the

narrow eyes of the law they are not

encroachers coming in the way of

development but occupiers having the right of

regularisation, and whatever follows from

that. What follows, indeed, is the other half of

the issue, of which more below. But middle

class Orissa’s view of them as a nuisance that

comes between it and paradise is baseless

even in the narrowest view.

Andhra Pradesh has its Jagatsinghpurs. The

grant of first 10,760 acres and then another

4,000 acres to a certain Janardhan Reddy, an

MLC of the BJP from Bellary in Karnataka, to

set up a steel plant near Jammalamadugu in

Cuddapah district of Rayalaseema has

attracted a lot of attention. This is because the

Telugu Desam Party has been campaigning

against the favour shown to this one

entrepreneur to the exclusion of others

(including Telugu Desam men, it is needless to

add) who may be equally interested. But that

is not our story. Our story is centred on the

land granted to the Brahmani Steels, the

industrial unit that is to come up there. The

government said it was all wasteland

belonging to it and hence there will be no

question of any forcible land acquisition. The

first question is the extent: after announcing

that 10,000 odd acres would be given for the

plant, another 4,000 was added on because the

company wanted “to build an air strip”,

according to press reports. That extent of land

for what will practically be a captive airport is

outrageous. But such liberality is not peculiar

to the Brahmani Steels. It is a characteristic of

the land grant bonanza that has overtaken the

country in the era of double digit growth that

nobody is asking why industrial or house-

building concerns need all the land they are

being granted. The value of the land may not

be much today, and may be notional if it is

government land, which makes it possible to

dismiss such queries as nit-picking, but once

industry comes up, the land surrounding it

will appreciate considerably in value, and can

be the nucleus of a profitable real estate

business that has nothing to do with the stated

purpose of the land grant. If the area is close

enough to a metropolis, it may well turn out

to be in fact the actual and not a subsidiary

purpose of the whole affair.

The second concern is that the so-called

wasteland is in no sense a “waste”. There is a

hamlet called Chitimitichintala of about 200

houses located in the land, peopled by Sugalis

(called Lambadas in Telangana and Banjaras in

central India). The Sugalis are recognised as a

Scheduled Tribe in Andhra Pradesh. The

Sugalis of Chitimitichintala are cultivating

about 450 acres of the land now given to

Brahmani Steels. Part of this land (though its

legal status is not very clear) appears to

belong to a Shrotriyam, a kind of land grant

given to brahmins in the past. All such

superior or special rights in land have been

abolished after independence, and the lands

have been settled in favour of persons

(including the superior landholders

themselves) who showed some evidence of

having cultivated or occupied them in the past

with the permission of the landholder. The

Sugalis too should have got legal title to the

land under their cultivation, but they made no

effort to claim the legal rights, which they did

not know they had and the government did

not care to tell them of. They remain therefore

encroachers on what is by default government

land. But even if it is government land and

they are encroachers, being encroachers of

long standing and landless poor to boot, they

are entitled to regularisation of their

occupation under the Board of Revenue

Standing Orders inherited by Andhra Pradesh

from the old Madras state. Since the

government did not care to do that, they

remain encroachers who are presumptuously

questioning Andhra Pradesh chief minister Y S

Rajasekhara Reddy’s gift to Rayalaseema.

Excerpted from EPW, September 29, 2007.

pp.3906-3911

GOVT, THE BIGGEST GRABBER OF WAKF LAND SYED AMIN JAFRI

As early as November 2006, the Sachar Committee noted that there are over 4.9 lakh registered wakfs with landed properties of six lakh acresspread across the country. The book value of these wakf properties was estimated at Rs.6,000 crores whereas their current annual income was onlyRs 163 crores. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Wakf, in its Ninth Report submitted in October 2008, echoed similar statistics. Both SacharCommittee and the JPC on wakf lamented that encroachments of wakf properties both by the state and private persons were common in almostevery state.

Among all the states, Andhra Pradesh has the third largest number of wakfs after West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh. AP ranks second in terms oflanded property after Rajasthan. The AP State Wakf Board is one of the biggest wakf boards in the country, with 37,470 wakf institutions and landedproperty of 1.45 lakh acres, valued conservatively at Rs.1,385 crores. The second survey currently underway, however, puts the number of wakfinstitutions at 70,784 with landed properties spread over 1.67 lakh acres in the state.

According to the Wakf Board’s own records, about 5,600 wakf properties, comprising 81,650 acres are under encroachment of private individualsas well as the state government and its different agencies.

Telangana region boasts of 33,929 wakf institutions (as per the first survey) with landed property of 77,538 acres. However, almost 74% of the lands(57,424 acres) are under encroachment. Coastal Andhra has 1,771 wakf institutions with landed properties of 27,044 acres out of which 16,408acres (61%) are under illegal occupation. Surprisingly, Rayalaseema, with 1,770 wakf institutions and 40,961 acres of landed properties, has only19% wakf lands (7,818 acres) under adverse possession.

It may be recalled that the government claims ownership over the lands belonging to dargahs such as those of Hazrat Baba Sharfuddin at PahadiShareef, Maqdoom Biyabani at Alur, Hussain Shah Wali at Manikonda and Syed Ali Ishaq Madani Aulia at Visakhapatnam. The lands of thesedargahs and other wakfs in Ranga Reddy and other districts have not only been taken over by the government but also allotted to APIIC, erstwhileHUDA (now Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority) and other departments which, in turn, leased or sold these out to IT and pharmacompanies, other institutions and special economic zones, literally for a song.

Noting that the approximate value of these wakf properties would exceed Rs 35,000 crores to Rs 45,000 crores, the JPC disapproved the contentiousaction of the AP government in snatching away the lands of these wakfs. The JPC urged the government to reconsider its stand and restore the landsto the wakf Board. The JPC, however, suggested “if the state needs the land, it may acquire it for any public purpose, only after paying adequatecompensation”.

Excerpted from TOI, Monday, September 2011, Hyderabad


Our dissenting voices about the

current pattern of high growth are

often branded as anti-development.

Therefore we need to state why we oppose the

present pattern of industrialization in India,

and how an alternative path can be charted

out, starting with a few practical steps. There

are five main reasons for our opposition as

political activists, and associated with each

there is a corresponding economic step that

needs to be taken to initiate the alternative

process of development within the realm of

practical politics and reasonable economics.

1 Deepening of Democracy and People’s

Rights

Politicians, economists and commentators of

all sorts from the media treat it as almost

axiomatic that the standard of living of

ordinary people cannot be improved without

large modern industries based mostly on the

historical experience of the west taken out of

context. They tend to forget that England took

some 100 years (1780-1880 approximately),

and a similar time scale was involved for

other western countries. During this period

people had hardly any democratic rights

based on universal adult suffrage. The same

applies even to later experiences like South

Korea, China, etc, which are transforming

faster. In contrast, India is a poor country

where people have democratic rights, though

the institutions that are necessary to secure

those rights malfunction. It is essential to

strengthen and expand these rights, especially

for the poor; instead they are being violated

continuously, most visibly through land

acquisition by the State without their consent.

The role of gram sabhas is not recognised, nor

is the legal process fully and fairly followed. It

is not just land but habitat after habitat, even

generations old, common property resources,

such as water bodies as also tree and forest

cover, that is snatched away, resulting in the

poor being deprived of their livelihoods and

uprooted from their socio-cultural milieu.

Compensation of all this loss with acceptable

alternative livelihoods and a share in the

benefit, rarely come true for decades, even

generations. People resist the resultant

trauma and fight for survival with right to life

and livelihood within our constitutional

framework.

We support these resistances against land

acquisition without people’s consent, we ask for

a referendum of the people involved, proper

rehabilitation and resettlement to correct the

wrong headed policies of successive

governments irrespective of the colour of the

government that indulges in it. The effect of

taking the people’s view on land acquisition

would directly influence the pattern of

industrialisation, making it non-displacing or

least displacing and truly employment

generating, i e, benefiting the local

communities who would be the investors of

land and all natural resources as against the

others who invest non-productive monetary

resources. Moreover, this would also

strengthen the democratic rights and

participatory role of the people in planning

development and community management.

2 Immediate Gainers and Permanent Losers

It must be recognised that the benefits of

industrialisation come unacceptably slowly to

the poor, because creation of jobs in industry

proceeds at a slow pace due to mechanisation

and rationalization of production in large

industries. Labour transfer from agriculture to

industry is a slow process, and in India the

contribution of agriculture to gross domestic

product has been falling dramatically, but the

percentage of population in agriculture has

been falling extremely slowly. As a result

government policies have turned agriculture

and much of the informal services into a

refuse sector where the poor are imprisoned

in sub-human poverty without a reasonable

chance of escape into the industrial or formal

service sector. Despite so much hype about

nearly double digit growth , regular

employment in the organised sector grew at

about 1%, according to the government’s own

admission in the Economic Survey. Private

sector employment growth did not even

compensate for the jobs lost in the public

sector. The two supposedly industrially

dynamic states with large direct foreign

investment, Gujarat and Maharashtra, were

among the incredibly slower growing states

in terms of employment (NSS 61st round;

also, The Times of India, 7 July 2008).

Nevertheless, this is not the entire story,

perhaps not even the most important part of

the story. The whole organised sector to which

the corporate sector belongs, accounts for less

than one-tenth of the labour force.

Contribution by the unorganised sector,

which includes most of agriculture, comes

from lengthening the hours of work to a

significant extent, as this sector has no labour

laws worth the name, or social security to

protect workers. Subcontracting to the

unorganised sector along with “casualisation”

of labour on a large scale become convenient

devices to ensure longer hours of work

without higher pay. Self-employed workers,

totalling 260 million, expanded the fastest

during the high growth regime, providing an

invisible source of output growth. Ruthless

self-exploitation by many of these workers in

a desperate attempt to survive by doing long

hours of work with very little extra earning

adds both to corporate profit, and to human

misery.

Government policies of fiscal austerity

embodied in the Fiscal Responsibility and

Budget Management (FRBM) Act of 2003

largely to keep the stock market, the foreign

investors, the World Bank and the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) happy

meant stagnation of public spending as a

proportion of GDP on education and health,

and denial of minimum social security to the

poor in almost all unorganised industry. The

time scale involved before the poor people in

this country can benefit from industrialisation

by moving into industrial jobs is too long. It

involves several generations that would have

lost their land, livelihood and home in the

meantime. How would they survive, how

would their children face eventually the

industrialising and globalising world without

Industrialisation for the People,by the People, of the People

Medha Patkar, Amit Bhaduri


education, health and without a community to

impart social values? To sacrifice the weakest

members of several successive generations in

the name of development is unacceptable and

incompatible with basic democratic values

and economic goals of equity.

Sound finance must be targeted at diverting

resources from unnecessary external and

internal defence expenditure, less money

spent on government pomp and splendour.

This can be achieved by opposing all divisive

policies in the name of religion, caste,

regionalism, by working systematically for

the poor, not by trying to fight terrorism of all

sorts with blind military might, and accepting

the legitimate demands of various

communities through negotiations. The Indian

federal structure should be flexible enough to

accommodate economically and politically

different degrees of autonomy for different

regions to reflect popular demand.

3 Corporates versus People

Until the recent financial crisis, it was an oft-

repeated cliché that the capitalist market

economy is good at creating wealth, but bad at

distributing it, while for socialism it is the

other way round. Such a wisecrack avoids

facing the real problem. It is overlooked that

how wealth is created determines to a very

large extent how it is distributed. Ideas such

as: create wealth by promoting corporations,

and then distribute it through state action like

high taxes, or through corporate social

responsibility are wishful thinking, and avoid

the real issue. If the state wants corporations

to create wealth, it also has to provide them

with the incentive to control and enjoy that

wealth. Corporations would not create wealth

simply to distribute it, except perhaps a minor

fraction in some instances! Therefore we have

to oppose corporate-led industrialisation,

which bestows control to the corporations as

the wrong track for improving the living

standards of the people; instead a way has to

be found by which wealth created mostly by

the people would have an in-built mechanism

for distribution in their favour without

depending on a top-heavy bureaucracy.

This alternative way of industrialising would

involve the poor, mostly uneducated and

illiterate people as a propelling force for the

creation and distribution of wealth. This

involves (a) their participation through

moving towards productive full employment

in the shortest possible time, and (b) not

destroying existing livelihoods without the

people’s consent and providing them with

alternative livelihoods, which, in the present

context, means that industry must come up on

vacant/uncultivable land. Economic growth

would be the outcome of this strategy, rather

than employment and other benefits being the

“trickle down” outcome of growth. This is a

fundamental difference between our and the

official economic perspective in the

formulation of Indian economic policies.

4. The Alternative

The alternative we envisage essentially

requires starting at economically the most

vulnerable points in our poor country with

poor, unskilled people rather than rejecting

them as useless for achieving high growth as

is happening now under liberalisation,

privatisation and globalisation pursued by the

present government (right now in a denial

mood due to the financial crisis and

forthcoming elections). Most of our poor are

in rural areas, unable to make a living, and

can earn enough in exchange of productive

work that builds up social wealth. This is

where we have to start by extending the

employment guarantee scheme everywhere,

in urban as well as in rural areas at a

minimum legally stipulated wage for 300 days

a year. This must be done immediately in

areas of special need due to catastrophes, like

the Kosi area, and areas of abysmal poverty

even by Indian standards, like Kandhamal in

Orissa. No large difference between rural and

urban wages should be allowed so that cities

do not gain at the cost of impoverished

villages. Jobs should be available on demand,

and would be largely self-selecting without

bureaucratic red tape because, if honestly

implemented, only the very poor with no

other reasonable source of income would opt

for it. It can also be seasonally adjusted.

The barrier to this policy is mainly twofold.

First, it cannot be implemented effectively

because bureaucratic mechanisms are

inadequate for ascertaining that the deserving

poor benefit, and productive work is offered

to improve living conditions rapidly in rural

areas. A precondition for this to happen is

decentralisation of power to the lowest level

of elected local government in the spirit of the

panchayati raj, not through mere political

pronouncements without intention. Neither

the centre nor the states have been enthusiastic

about giving complete autonomy of decision-

making and even less financial autonomy to

the local governments. Yet without these

measures no large-scale productive

employment generation programme, which

would benefit local communities under their

own responsibility, can have any reasonable

chance of success. However, decentralisation is

necessary but not sufficient; all movements of

the people must support it in the teeth of

opposition of the vested interest of politicians

at higher levels (MLAs, MPs), higher

bureaucracy (the Indian Administrative

Service, the state bureaucracy), so-called

economic and developmental experts housed

by organisations like the IMF, the World Bank

and the Asian Development Bank (ADB)

working in unison with the Indian

government, and hostile media-persons who

pretend to know. The simple guiding

principle should be, “those who hope to

benefit from these local projects must take the

responsibility of their decisions”. They would

gradually bear an increasing proportion of the

cost from local efforts as they become

financially stronger.

Excerpted from EPW, January, 3, 2009.

pp.10-13

We welcome letters of comment and criticism in response to this issue. Kindly address your letters to:The Editorial Team, The Broadsheet on Contemporary Politics, Anveshi Research Centre for Women’s Studies,

2-2-18/49, D.D. Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad 500013. Email letters may be addressed [email protected]. Responses will be published in the following issue of the broadsheet,

provided the content is found to be free of abusive language, hate speech and personal allegations.


Export Processing Zones (EPZs) are an

international phenomenon

influencing increasing share of trade

flows and employing a growing number of

workers. In 1986, there were 176 zones across

47 countries; by 2003, the number had

increased to over 3,000 across 116 countries.

Over the past few years, the policy of

promoting zones has found favour with the

government of India as well. In 2000, the

government replaced the old EPZ regime by a

new scheme of “Special Economic Zones”

(SEZs) with several lucrative incentives/

benefits that were not available in the earlier

scheme. In 2005, it enacted the SEZ Act and the

SEZ Rules were notified in February 2006. The

policy is expected to give a big push to

exports, employment and investment in SEZs.

The ministry of commerce claims that these

zones are expected to attract investment of

about Rs 1,00,000 crore including FDI of Rs

25,000 crore and create additional 5,00,000

direct jobs, by December 2007.

These claims notwithstanding, the policy has

come under heavy criticism. Dissenters

contend that the policy would be misused for

real estate development rather than for

generating exports. Concerns have also been

expressed on the displacement of farmers by

land acquisition, loss of fertile agricultural

land, a huge revenue loss to the exchequer and

adverse consequences of uneven growth.

The promotion of SEZs is an attempt to deal

with infrastructural deficiencies, procedural

complexities, bureaucratic hassles and barriers

raised by monetary, trade, fiscal, taxation,

tariff and labour policies. These structural

bottlenecks affect the investment climate

adversely by increasing production and

transaction costs. Since country-wide

development of infrastructure is expensive

and implementation of structural reforms

would require time, due to given socio-

economic and political institutions, the

establishment of industrial enclaves (SEZs/

EPZs) is seen as an important strategic tool for

expediting the process of industrialisation in

these countries. The zones offer numerous

benefits such as, (i) tax incentives,(ii)

provision of standard factories/plots at low

rents with extended lease period, (iii)

provision of infrastructure and utilities,(iv)

single window clearance, (v) simplified

procedures, and (vi) exemptions from various

restrictions that characterise the investment

climate in the domestic economy.

These benefits foster a conducive business

environment to attract local and foreign

investment, which would not otherwise have

been forthcoming. The competitive

advantages of zones may also be explained

within the framework of the “cluster

approach”. Zones are industrial clusters where

external economies of scale and other

advantages help the operating firms in

reducing costs, developing competitive

production systems and attracting investment,

in particular, FDI. As a result of these benefits,

many developing countries have been

promoting zones with the expectation that

they will provide the engine of growth to

propel industrialisation.

There is, however, no conclusive evidence

regarding the role of the zones in the

development process of a country. The

literature review indicates that while some

countries have been able to capture the

dynamic and static gains from zone

operations, many others have not [Aggarwal

2006a]. In that context, it is important to

analyse the Indian experience.

Indian Experience

A micro level analysis of the zones’

contribution to industrialisation efforts in

India reveals that EPZs have had a catalytic

effect in promoting new production sectors,

exporting new products and in building up the

country’s image in certain products in

international markets [Aggarwal 2006b]. The

foundation of the modern jewellery industry

in India, for instance, was laid in SEEPZ in

Mumbai in 1987-88. It was there that the “wax

setting technique” was introduced in jewellery

production, which made mass scale

production possible and dramatically

transformed the labour-intensive jewellery

industry from its cottage industry status into a

highly mechanised modern industry. SEZs

accounted for over 55 per cent of total Indian

jewellery exports in 2002-03. Zones have also

been instrumental in creating the base for the

growth of the electronics industry through

technology transfers, spillovers and

demonstration effects. Until the early 1980s,

electronic hardware exports were primarily

originating from EPZs. Even during 2000-02,

the share of SEZs in total hardware exports

was as much as 26 per cent. The Indian

software saga also really began in SEEPZ,

Mumbai. The first major breakthrough in

India’s software exports came in 1977 when

the Tatas established a unit in SEEPZ in

partnership with Burroughs, an American

company, to export software and peripherals.

A further breakthrough in the progress of the

industry occurred when, in 1985, Citibank

established a 100 per cent foreign-owned,

export-oriented, offshore software company in

SEEPZ. This company drew attention to the

possibilities available for offshore software

development in India. Soon after, Texas

Instruments and Hewlett-Packard established

subsidiaries in Bangalore, in 1986 and 1989,

respectively and the rest is history.

The success stories notwithstanding, the

economic contribution of SEZs remained

minuscule at the national level. Though India

was the first Asian country to take the free

zone initiative and set up the first zone in

Kandla as early as in 1965, the share of SEZs in

exports was a mere 5 per cent in 2004-05.

Furthermore, they accounted for only 1 per

cent of factory sector employment and 0.32 per

cent of factory investment in the same year.

Their contribution to regional economies has

also been limited. Although they have had a

positive impact on regional employment and

human development by creating economic

opportunities, especially for those without

high levels of schooling, their potential in

contributing to human development has not

been fully exploited due to their failure in

attracting investment and promoting

economic activities in the region.

SEZ Regime: Indian Context

The 1991 reforms did not result in a

Revisiting the Policy Debate SpecialEconomic Zones:

A discussion of the pros and consof the controversial SEZ policy.

Aradhana Aggarwal


sustainable growth in manufacturing, therewas a significant slowdown in the second-halfof the 1990s. Bureaucratic red tape,administrative procedures, rigid labour lawsand poor infrastructure are believed to haveaffected the investment climate adversely inthe manufacturing sector. To address theseissues, the government reverted to EPZs withthe expectation that if they could effectively beseparated from the rest of the economy thenthey could provide the “engine of growth” topropel the manufacturing sector. It was arguedthat the existing zones could not succeed inattracting investment because of the lack ofgovernment commitment to the programme,piecemeal reforms, policy reversals, poor siteselection, failure to provide world classinfrastructure, weak incentives and poorregulation of the zones. In a major initiative toboost export-led growth and motivated by thesuccess of Chinese SEZs, the governmentreplaced the EPZ scheme with the “SEZscheme” in 2000. The main difference betweenan SEZ and EPZ is that the former is anintegrated township with fully developedinfrastructure whereas an EPZ is just anindustrial enclave. Under the new scheme, allexisting zones were converted into SEZs andthree greenfield SEZs became operational by2004. However, the impact of SEZs remainedfar removed from expectations. In order toprovide a significant thrust to the policy, thegovernment enacted the SEZ Act 2005. The actbecame operative in February 2006 after theSEZ rules were framed and notified. Inaddition, state governments also enacted theirown SEZ laws, primarily to cover statesubjects. The salient features of the SEZ Act areas follows.

Governance: An important feature of the Act isthat it provides a comprehensive SEZ policyframework to satisfy the requirements of allprincipal stakeholders in an SEZ – thedeveloper and operator, occupant enterprise,out zone supplier and residents.

Another major feature of the Act is that itclaims to provide expeditious and singlewindow clearance mechanisms. Theresponsibility for promoting and ensuringorderly development of SEZs is assigned tothe board of approval. It is to be constitutedby the central government. While the centralgovernment may suo motu set up a zone,proposals of the state governments andprivate developers are to be screened andapproved by the board. At the zone level,approval committees are constituted toapprove/reject/modify proposals for settingup SEZ units. In addition, the Development

Commissioner (DC) and his/her office is

responsible for exercising administrative

control over a zone. The labour

commissioner’s powers are also delegated to

the DC. Finally, clause 23 requires that

designated courts will be set up by the state

governments to try all suits of a civil nature

and notified offences committed in the SEZs.

Affected parties may appeal to high courts

against the orders of the designated courts.

Incentives: The Act offers a highly attractive

fiscal incentive package, which ensures (i)

exemption from custom duties, central excise

duties, service tax, central sales taxes and

securities transaction tax to both the

developers and the units; (ii) tax holidays for

15 years (currently the units enjoy a seven

year tax holiday), i e, 100 per cent tax

exemption for 5 years, 50 per cent for the next

five years, and 50 per cent of the ploughed

back export profits for the next five years; and

(iii) 100 per cent income tax exemption for 10

years in a block period of 15 years for SEZ

developers.

Infrastructure: Provisions have been made for

(i) the establishment of free trade and

warehousing zones to create world class trade-

related infrastructure to facilitate import and

export of goods aimed at making India a

global trading hub; (ii) the setting up of

offshore banking units and units in an

international financial service centre in SEZs;

and(iii) the public private participation in

infrastructure development; and (iv) the

setting up of a “SEZ authority” in each central

government SEZ for developing new

infrastructure and strengthening the existing

one.

There has been a tremendous rush to set up

SEZs since the Act came into effect in February

2006. The total number of approvals and in-

principle approvals across 21 states as on

October 27, 2006, was 212 and 152,

respectively. As on date, 34 SEZs out of these

approvals have been notified.

The Debate

The SEZ policy has become one of the most

hotly debated issues in recent years. Huge

protests are being organised by those who

stand to lose their land. There has been a

scathing campaign against SEZs by politicians,

scholars, media and civil society. Of much

more concern however is the fact that there

are differences within the government too.

The Congress president Sonia Gandhi has also

expressed her reservations over the impact of

SEZ policy on displaced farmers and the

Reserve Bank of India has asked the banks to

treat SEZ lending as real estate business and

not infrastructure. The advocates of the policyled by the ministry of commerce have

however strongly defended the policy.

Though the ministry of commerce hasattempted to dispel the criticism of the SEZpolicy, the fact remains that the SEZ Act was

framed without giving adequate thought tomost of the ancilliary issues. No exercise wasundertaken to ensure that legal institutions

are in place for massive land acquisition. Nolong-term strategy was drawn to counter thesocio-economic consequences of the scheme.

Even amid heavy criticism of the policy, noserious research has been conducted on howSEZs will affect the regional economy, how

much fertile land will actually be lost, howmany farmers will be affected and what thetax implications of SEZs will be. Most

arguments are based on the perception ofofficials. There is therefore an urgent need toinstitute a study on the socio-economic effects

of SEZs under consideration.

A note of caution

The sectoral break of SEZ approvals shows

that the largest number of approvals (61 percent) has been in the IT sector. Themanufacturing sector accounts for only one-

third of total approvals. This pattern isworrisome. In view of the decliningcompetitiveness of the manufacturing sector,

the focus of the SEZ policy needs to be onmaking India a preferred destination formanufacturing. It is however encouraging to

note that the share of manufacturing SEZs inapprovals in-principle is 69 per cent.

Furthermore, it is instructive to note that SEZsdo not embody dynamic forces that can pointtowards sustainable development. In the long

run the competitiveness of SEZs can besustained only if economywide investmentclimate is improved. This is because zones

cannot be insulated from the broaderinstitutional and economic context of thecountry. The key to successful

industrialisation in the long run thus lies inshaping the existing institutions such that theydrive firms towards an outward orientation

and technological upgradation; the creation ofzones which offer the easy option ofcompeting on the basis of cost minimisation

should only be treated as a transitory policyarrangement. Zones should not be consideredthe best policy option for long-run industrial

development. Thus, the establishment of EPZsshould not be regarded as a substitute forpursuing institutional and infrastructural

improvements.

Excerpted from EPW November – 4, 2006

pp 4533 - 4535


Excerpts from an interview by Kamal Nath Union

Minister for Commerce and Industry.

Kamal Nath: Special Economic Zones are not

anything new. These zones have existed in

many countries and we have had Export

Processing Zones in India too. The reason is

simple: stable investment needs a stable

regulatory regime. An SEZ is just an industrial

cluster with an infrastructure, meant primarily

for exports.

Now, the issue is what kind of SEZs will work

for India. China has very large SEZs because

they don’t have forest land, they don’t have

gram panchayat lands, they don’t have

revenue lands, village lands, community lands

etc. So they can have SEZs of 150 square

kilometres. We have land constraints in India.

So we learnt early that we need an India-

specific model. What should be the size of

SEZs in India? There will be variations

between states, between sectors, etc; the

situation of each state is different. That’s why

we have both sector-specific and multi-

product SEZs. For instance, we have SEZs for

gems and jewellery, which don’t require a lot

of space. We have very great strengths in IT.

We have IT SEZs, but IT growth happens

vertically, not horizontally. So why should I

insist on large SEZs to the disadvantage of our

export sectors? We have to work with the

sectors where we have an advantage. We put

the SEZ Bill on the Internet for 10 months, I

heard over 1400 suggestions from all sides, I

held open-houses, and finally we came up

with an India-specific SEZ Act which suits our

conditions. What are the benefits that this act

will provide? It will provide two main

benefits: exports and employment. Exporters

in India are already exempted from taxes,

because around the world the principle is that

you don’t export taxes. Until now, the

exporters would be exempted from taxes and

could claim the duties they paid as a refund. In

an SEZ, they simply don’t pay the duties.

When the Finance Ministry calculates the loss

from duties, they don’t take into account the

fact that those duties would have been

refunded anyway. We also need to distinguish

between two different players here: the person

(the developer) who makes the infrastructure

and the units that will use the infrastructure to

export. The person who makes the

infrastructure needs tax benefits, or else why

should he invest? In any case, investors in

infrastructure already receive tax breaks.

Besides we also need space for housing of

workers, because otherwise we’ll have jhuggi

the zone? Investment and employment have

been created by the zones. Exports are also

increasing.

What if an SEZ developer does not perform? There

are no performance standards laid down in the Act

for SEZ developers.

K N: If a developer doesn’t perform, if he

doesn’t build infrastructure, he won’t make

any profits. And that will be his loss.

But he will have the zone.

K N: It’s his private land. If he wants to build

flats on it, he can build flats on it; if he wants

to make an SEZ on it, he can do that too. But

he doesn’t get any benefits purely from

getting approval to be an SEZ.

Many of the state governments are acquiring land

for the zones.

K N: What the state governments do is a

different matter. Land acquisition has nothing

to do with SEZs.

The developer will still receive tax concessions for

any profits he might make, for any activity in the

non-processing area – even if it’s not industrial.

K N: The tax concessions are available to only

those activities of the developer which are

approved by the Board of Approval and

moreover, the activities in the non-processing

area have been linked with the activity level

in the processing area. The developer doesn’t

get any benefits just because he has the

approval letter. The developer can’t do

whatever he wants in there. As soon as the

SEZ is notified, it is bonded by customs and

tax concessions are available only for

authorised activities. Even for the authorized

activities, duty free material has to be

approved by the approval committee.

The WTO has barred export subsidies as per the

Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing

Measures. Countries that use export subsidies can

be subjected to countervailing duties on their

exports. The incentives in SEZs, like tax

concessions, tariff reductions on imports etc. would

be barred under these agreements.

K N: We are not giving any cash incentives for

exports from SEZs and as such there are no

export subsidies there. I have been

emphasizing that taxes should not be

exported. Remember that SEZs are all about

single window clearances and simplified

procedures. So instead of asking the SEZ

developers and units to pay taxes first and

then refunding the same through drawback

etc., we have provided for exemption right in

the beginning.

SEZs have nothing to dowith land acquisition

INDIA DOESN’T NEED SEZS:BHAGWATI

Noted Economist, Prof Jagadish Bhagwatiof Columbia University opposed India settlingup special Economic Zones. Excerpts:

“SEZs are a sort of scaffolding with whichyou climb into more openness. Hopefully, thatdemonstration (of openness in SEZs) willshow that it is worth having these policies.

But now that you have the building, why doyou need the scaffolding? Already the policieshave changed. So, I think it’s a backward step,”

Bhagwati said that China needed SEZsbecause it had an export-oriented strategywhich relied on its eastern seaboard with fourprovinces and 700 million workers as aplatform to experiment with the policy whilethe rest of the country remained closed.

“And the way it (the SEZs in India) is beingmanaged, you know the politicians are gettingtheir hands on it and ultimately you have totake land. There is nothing wrong with it aslong as people pay for it. And if you getpoliticians to assign it, then you can be surethere is a rent, and clearly when you havesomething like that, you are offering atemptation to the politicians or bureaucratsor whoever. That is also when you buildresentment, when peoples’ lands are taken.But we are a democratic system.

“Similar things are happening in China, whichis experiencing land grab. There they haveno recourse at all. They don’t have any NGOsto go to, they don’t have a free press, noindependent judiciary, and no oppositionparties. So, what do they do? At least here it’sbeing discussed. But as I said, we don’t needthe damn thing.”

(Dinesh Narayanan & Anil G Nair,) TNN Oct19, 2006

jhopris coming up. But we’ve made the rules

strict, we’ve said you can build houses,

hospitals, schools, etc., but first build 25 per

cent of what you propose and don’t come back

for permission for more until those are

occupied. So there’s no question of real estate.

As for persons who export, they get benefits

outside, so why should they not get it inside


SONIA JOINS THE SEZDEBATE

Addressing the opening session of the 7th

Congress enclave? Chief Minister Ms.SoniaGandhi, Congress President, hinted thatfarmers should be made “stake-holders inthe activity undertaken on land acquired fromthem.” She said. “Prime Agricultural landshould not normally be diverted to non-agricultural uses. Industry requires land nodoubt. But this must be done withoutjeopardising our agricultural prospects.Farmers must get proper compensationwhen their land is purchased. Could farmersalso not become stake holders in the projectsthat come up on the land acquired from them?Our resettlement and rehabilitation policiesmust be strengthened and implemented inan effective and credible manner which willinspire confidence in the people who are

displaced.”

(Aarthi Ramachandran) TNN Sep 24, 2006,

(9.03am IST)

SEZs were officially claimed to have three main

goals: employment, exports and infrastructure. But

most SEZs are coming up in suburban areas where

there is already good infrastructure. Shouldn’t they

be directed to poorer areas or wastelands?

K N: If an investor comes and says I want to

build my zone here, and I tell him to go build

it somewhere else, he will leave. I can’t do

that.

So they are not contributing to infrastructure

generally, only for their own needs.

K N: They are contributing to infrastructureinside the zone.

But often it is the state government (and not private

investors) that has promised to spend money from

the public exchequer on infrastructure to facilitate

investment in the zone. The Andhra government,

for instance, recently sanctioned Rs 750 crores from

NO FINANCE SOPSTO SEZ DEVELOPERS

RBI governor YV Reddy told reporters on thesidelines of a seminar “like any other land,SEZ is real estate”. The governor’s commentscame in the context of the Central bank’snotifications that directed all Scheduledbanks to offer credit to SEZs on the sameterms and conditions as offered to real estatedevelopers. The RBI guidelines are expectedto make the funding for SEZs costlier. Thecentre is currently finalizing a large numberof investment proposals for setting up SEZs.

While lending to infrastructure projectscarries a risk weight of 100% those to realestate projects have a risk weight of 150%.This means that lending to SEZs would notonly be costlier but banks would also havelower funds to provide lending to SEZdevelopers and units. The RBI views are insync with the finance ministry concerns onthe plethora of SEZ approvals. It has said thiswould lead to a massive revenue loss to theexchequer, from the tax sops given to 150SEZs already cleared and a couple of hundredothers, pending.

TNN Sep 22, 2006

Export zones are now regarded largely as outdated.

The IMF, the World Bank, the ADB, the OECD and

so on have criticized zone policies.

K N: Don’t tell me about the IMF. Thesepeople in the IMF and the World Bank, sittingin Washington, have never visited any SEZ inIndia. I told the World Bank President, comeand see an SEZ, then make your comments.These people are against the developing

MONTEK NOT IN FAVOUR OFADDITIONAL INCENTIVES TO SEZS

Planning Commission Deputy ChairmanMontek Singh Ahluwalia on the sidelines of aSEBI function, told reporters that he was notin favour of concessional benefits andadditional incentives to SEZs. The commerceand finance ministers have been atloggerheads over the mushrooming of SEZs,which could lead to a revenue rip-off as manyof them were being set up to take advantageof tax benefits. SEZs involve a lot ofconstruction for real estate similar to anyother infrastructure project.

PTI Oct 6, 2006

the state budget to create infrastructure for SEZs

in the state.

K N: I don’t know what the state governmentsare doing. But if they want to build a road toan SEZ, why should anyone object?

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on

Commerce recommended that there should be a

freeze on zone approvals. Why has the government

not done so?

K N: We said, let’s wait for a couple of yearsand see what happens. Besides a lot of thesethings are motivated by competitors, peoplewho have got SEZs and want to make sure thatno other SEZ comes up anywhere close totheirs. They don’t want competition.

countries. Tell me what is their own trackrecord? Have they ever succeeded? Look, thezones are working, they are functioning. Theyare doing well. Crores of investment arecoming in, thanks to the competition amongstthe different states in the country. Go and seewell- functioning SEZs like Nokia, Mahindraand others.

Excerpted from Seminar No. 582

February,2008 pp20-22

In that case they will not contribute to

infrastructure?

K N: No, they are contributing. Already somuch investment has taken place. They arecreating infrastructure. Thousands of croreshave come in, which is going intoinfrastructure.


These lands are called the ‘commons’ in

English. They are known with

different names in Telugu such as

Gramkantham, Gramanetham etc., according

to the regional dialect. In a more

understandable language, these lands may be

termed Panchayat lands or common village

lands. Though the name itself tells us of the

meaning and purpose of these lands, there are

many influential and dominant people of the

village, officials and politicians (who want to

mislead us) in our country.

Ponds, graveyards, canals, urinals, streets,

grazing pastures, etc., are all common lands.

This means that these lands are of use to all

the villagers. That is why these lands are not

supposed to be given to anyone. Even though

these belong to Gram Panchayats, that does

not mean they may be misused. These

institutions have the responsibility of

protecting these lands—it is their work. It is

very strange that when each and every person

of the village knows these truths, how the

government officials do not know! It is

strange that in the name of a thermal project,

or an SEZ, etc., thousands of acres of such

lands are handed over to private companies.

The Supreme Court has given a good

judgment a few months ago on these scams in

the case of Jagpal Singh vs. Punjab

Government & others (Civil Appeal No. 1132/

2011):

What we have witnessed since Independence,

however, is that in large parts of the country this

common village land has been grabbed by

unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money

power or political clout, and in many States now

there is not an inch of such land left for the common

use of the people of the village, though it may exist

on paper. People with power and pelf operating in

villages all over India systematically encroached

upon communal lands and put them to uses totally

inconsistent with its original character, for personal

aggrandizement at the cost of the village

community. This was done with active connivance

of the State authorities and local powerful vested

interests and goondas..

When we read the above statement, are we not

reminded of the Sompeta and Kakrapalli

incidents, where people were beaten by

goondas or were killed in police firing? Are

we not reminded of the green lands that were

handed over to the private companies in the

Kakinada SEZ? These are the places and

villages that we already know, and the people

are also known to us. Where else are these not

going on? If we cross our state boundaries we

see Posco, Jaitapur, Narmada and so on.

Not only do the common lands used for

specific purposes belong to the village—even

scrublands, uncultivable lands, endowment

lands, gifted lands, temple lands etc also

belong to the whole village. These lands may

be given as pattas under employment scheme

to the locals as assigned lands. However, no

one has the right either to sell or use these

lands illegally. The main aim of the Supreme

Court judgment quoted above is to save these

lands from illegal occupation. Villages like

the Rohar Jagir village of Patiala district of

Punjab state also have a pond. All the canals of

the village merge into this pond. This pond

was illegally occupied by some unknown

people who started a housing project. The

Patiala district collector instead of resisting

illegal occupation and dismantling the illegal

construction tried to legalize it by paying

some amount to the panchayat through the

illegal occupiers. Finally, this case went to the

two member Supreme Court division bench in

the form of an appeal. Supreme Court asserted

that this type of illegal occupation should not

be legalized, illegal construction should be

dismantled and the land should be handed

over to the panchayat. We would not have

brought this judgment to your attention, if the

judgment had been delivered limiting only to

the case details. The Supreme Court in this

judgment also issued a few important verdicts

that would serve as guidelines to the central

and state government officials.

The Supreme Court made it clear that when

lands are useful to humanity at large, people

have the right over such lands even if they are

under government control. The Supreme

Court also clarified that the lands occupied by

the government under the acts such as the

Estate Prohibition Act does not mean that the

people will loose complete right over those

lands. We should think of how useful this

judgment is when the common people have to

fight with the government for the lands which

are gram panchayat lands, uncultivable lands,

lands that are useful for the common purpose

so that these lands are not misused. This

judgment is useful to shut the mouth of the

officials who say, “Government has the sole

authority over the lands that are under its

control, who are you to question it?” This

judgment also tells us that there is no way for

the government to neglect the aspirations and

opinion of the people, and the objections of

the Gram Sabha on these lands. It also says

that if need be, these lands can be used under

various acts to construct houses for poor, SC,

ST sections and to build schools, hospitals for

common purposes, but in no way may these

lands be occupied by land grabbers.

Continuing its judgment, the Supreme Court

advised the officials of the state government

to take back the lands that have been illegally

occupied and hand them over to gram sabha

and panchayats and create land use schemes

that would be helpful for the common use of

the villagers. The Supreme Court also clearly

said that there is no possibility of legalizing

illegal occupation of lands, or granting

exemption from resumption of such lands,

because, e.g., “a lot of time has passed under

illegal occupation” or “a lot of money has

been spent on construction at the site”, or that

“they have political influence” etc. It also set

out conditions for the legalization of such

lands. The illegal occupation can be legalized

only when these lands are given to the

landless poor or given on lease to the SC, ST

groups, or when these are used for the a

common purpose such as a school or hospital.

Under such conditions the government

officials should conduct enquiries and should

submit a report to the court, it said.

We have brought this judgment to your

attention because it is helpful to the people,

mass organizations, and the peoples

movements who are fighting continuously to

protect the lands from the illegal occupiers so

that the village lands are not misused,. Let us

once again remind the officials that even

though lands belong to the government they

are answerable/accountable for the use of

such lands.

HRF Pamphlet

23-8-2011

Human Rights Forum (HRF)

Translated from Telugu by Kaneez Fathima

Let us protect the commonlands of our villages


In the matter of HRC No. 1260/2007

I am one of the complainants, in my capacity

as Convenor of Kadali network, in the above

complaint.

The Hon’ble Commission is seized of the

above matter, which pertains to the forcible

and fraudulent acquisition of land for SEZ

near Kakinada. The specific complaint is that

(i).The SEZ which was initially proposed near

the town of Kakinada was shifted to its

present location in U.Kothapalli and Tondangi

Mandals with specious reasons in the interests

of real estate businessmen; (ii) valuable land

which provides considerable livelihood and is

substantially irrigated has been shown falsely

as barren and of poor quality land to justify

this change; (iii) about 45% of the land has

been purchased from the landholders by

dubious means; (iv) no provision has been

made for taking care of the loss of livelihood

of the fishing community who live on the

seashore (which will now be sandwiched

between the SEZ and the sea), and catch fish in

the sea which is now going to be severely

polluted by the petroleum-related industries

that are to come up in the SEZ; (v) the State

Government’s Relief & Rehabilitation policy

in G.O.Ms.No.68 has not even begun to be

implemented.

However, even while the complaint is

pending, the authorities are using force to take

possession of the entire land, with the aim of

fencing it and preventing access to the

landholders. A message has been sent to Sri

Chinta Suryanarayana Murthy, Convenor of

the farmer’s movement against the SEZ,

resident of Moolapeta, U.Kothapalli Mandal,

that on Saturday i.e tomorrow the 9th day of

August the police will come in force to take

the possession of the lands. As the people are

prepared to resist, there is likely to be a

serious conflict.

Last week in Srirampuram in the same

Mandal, the developer of the SEZ Mr K.V.Rao

brought labourers to cut down sarivi

(casuarina) trees numbering about 200 in the

land whose purchase is disputed as being

fraudulent. The people resisted and there was

severe tension. It was resolved only when the

District Collector prevailed upon the

developer to pay compensation of Rs 25,000 to

the farmers whose trees had been cut. They

have paid Rs 20,000/-. The conflict may not

end so smoothly if it is not the developer but

Petition

Before The Andhra Pradesh StateHuman Rights Commission Hyderabad

the armed police who come to take possession

of the land.

It is not within our comprehension why the

government is in such a hurry. A writ petition

filed by some individual landowners on the

procedural aspects of the land acquisition has

been pending in the High Court for two years

and the stay granted by the High Court

subsists. This Hon’ble Commission is hearing

the matter on a broader canvas, and has

specifically directed the authorities not to use

force to take possession of the land. The

developer has not yet identified any concern

or concerns that are to invest in the SEZ. On

the other hand the resistance from the

landlosers is strong. It is so strong that in spite

of announcing the programme of

inauguration of the SEZ many times, the

Government has postponed it again and again.

The Prime Minister and the President of AICC

were supposed to inaugrate the SEZ, and their

time was sought for the programme. Yet the

programme has been postponed repeatedly.

Such is the resistance of the people.

In these circumstances the decision of the

authorities to forcibly take possession of the

land is most unfortunate. Kindly intervene in

the matter and advise the District Collector to

desist from the adventurous action.

(K.Rajendra Kumar)

Convenor, Kadali Network

Date: 8/8/2008

Hyderabad


Q: What is the status of SEZs in Coastal Andhra?

When Rajasekhar Reddy was chief minister, hedeclared the intent to start 119 SEZs in AndhraPradesh. The proposed area at that time was5000 hectares or 12500 acres per SEZ.Seventeen of these have been approved, andfour are functioning today Land acquisition isproceeding in the seventeen approvedlocations. Even before the SEZ Act of 2005 wasput in place, the police and revenuedepartments were mobilized for acquisition.The employees of the revenue department, thevillage assistants and ex-karnams were themiddle-men of the acquisition. Like themiddlemen in the grain trade, they decide saleand purchase price, hold the monopoly oftrade and destroy any farmer who wants toask for more money for their land. They alsomotivate the farmers to sell the land. Thereare four working SEZs today Apache, Brandix,Aurobindo and Hetero Drugs.Q: Tell us something about the details about SEZ

policy and practice in relation to land acquisition?

The British carried out land survey andsettlement in the nineteenth century. In theBritish records, much of the land near theseacoast was categorized as dry land. This hasnot changed even today. However afterindependence, the Arthur Cotton barrage, andthe river and inland tank irrigation projectssupplied water to these dry lands. Today,irrigated crops are grown on these so-called‘dry’ lands. The categorization has notchanged. Today, SEZs claim that they areacquiring dry land while in actual practice,much of it is irrigated. Now, before the SEZscame, the categorization as dry land made itpossible for the farmers to pay less landrevenue. Once SEZs have come into thepicture, the knife cuts the other way and thecategorization as dry land makes acquisitioneasy and also brings down the assessed valueof land. The courts use these categories andthe people cannot do anything in about this.When the SEZ promoters and governmentsaid they were taking dry land near Kakinada,the Kadali Network, did a micro study of thetopography, conducted surveys of water

availability, cropping, growth of trees,fruiting, etc, and submitted it to the court. Wealso provided the information to the courtabout purchase of fertilizer and sale of crops.We challenged any official to a debate on thecharacter of dry land and this resulted in someunderstanding on the part of the judges.However, the judges went against us. ‘Wedon’t know how many anti-SEZ activistgroups took this path. This is one of thereasons why in Nellore there is not so muchprogress in anti-SEZ activism.’Q: What are the new SEZ strategies?

The idea of a coastal corridor forindustrialization is being propagated. Thisconsists of 975 kilometers of coastline fromSrikakulam to Nellore, with a minimumwidth of 25 kilometers. They are vacating1000 villages on the AP coastline in the nameof the coastal corridor. In each district, theyare planning an air port and 2-3 coal basedpower plants– a total of 70 power plants.Kakrapalli, Sompeta, Kovvada are all part ofthis power generation programme.Canals from the left bank of the Polavaramproject are being planned to run within the 25kilometer coastal corridor. As of now thisplanning is being done in the name of thefarmers, but when we look at the waterresources made in the master plan for thecoastal corridor, we see the shadow feasibilityreport of the Polavaram project as a source ofwater for industrializing the coastal corridor.Q: What are the environmental and health effects of

these projects?

Lowland irrigated crop is usually paddy, anddry lands have multi-cropping with fruitorchards. When industrialization occurscultivation, mangroves and fishing all areaffected. The establishment of power plantsresult in much disturbance of the environment– people fall sick, and there is wide spreadillness and even impotence due to mercurypoisoning which comes from the coal used.When gas based plants release their gases onceor twice a day, birds don’t sleep at night, andfish, tortoises, migratory birds etc., moveaway. There are several cases of abortion

among the pregnant women in these areas.Laterite soil is a sponge for water – this iswhat results in springs in the hilly regions.This land is being given for development, andresults in the loss of water streams in theseareas too. The industries never have forest,environment or revenue clearance – but SEZsare now in full control – Reliance industriesparticularly.Q: What is the impact of SEZs on people?

Fifty thousand fishermen are now out of anoccupation. 10% of these are of the Dalitcommunity. Young men are fighting againstthe SEZ acquisitions but there is no movementto speak of. We have no help, academics writebooks, but nothing is being done for thepeople who are losing land, occupations,access to the sea. The intellectuals who comehere are like a parade of circus animals – weshow them on the stage, they speak, and thenthey go back and do nothing – most of them,not all. The hill and forest tribal is beingpushed to the plains, the plainsman is beingpushed on the road, and the fisherman too islaid out on the road – this is the action of thegovernment in the name of development. Weare not against development – we only wantto ensure that tribals have their sustenance,farmers and farm workers have theirlivelihood, and fishermen have access to thefish in the sea.Kakinada is now entering the coercive phaseof implementation. Kakinada started with thesea port in 1994 – after this K.V. Raoprivatized the sea port. Now there are fourberths – twenty thousand families werethrown on the roads. Rehabilitation has neverbeen done since Nehru or Indira Gandhi, whatwill they do now? Sea-coast based SEZs wereplanned in 2002. Two thousand acres wereproposed as the size of land available to eachSEZ. After this industrialists belonging to thedominant castes took control. The areaproposed was increased10,000 acres of landper SEZ in the second phase – 2003-2004. Thiswas originally in Peddapuram, Samalakota,Pithapuram, new Kathipalli, Kakinada urbanand rural – but the catch was that this landbelonged to the dominant castes. Then therewas a study was conducted by academics, andbought over by these dominant castes, whichsaw that this area was to develop as towns inthe near future – the land could not be givento SEZs. After this the location was shifted tonew Kothapalli and Thondangi, Mandalswhere Yadavs, fishermen and Dalitcommunities reside.Q: What is your assessment of the Anti SEZ

movement today?

I am invisible because I am a Dalit. I am not

Interview with Rajendra, SEZactivist who started the Kadalicollective from Kakinada

K.Srinivasulu, A.Suneetha, R.Srivatsan and G.Shyamala


acceptable to the people I mobilize fromdifferent castes groups. TV cameras don’t liketo focus on my face. But, I don’t feel upset – Iam happy about my life. As soon as the SEZact was passed ONGC began acquiring land –the people stood back because it is a public-sector enterprise. But we soon realized thatthe ONGC was wrecking our livelihood.Action Aid helped in stopping ONGC. Westarted the Kadali network to train peoplesmovements. We began to lock governmentoffices, the offices of the MRO in our protests.When the SEZs began, political persons andabsentee landlords began to sell the lands they‘owned’ by hook or crook. Poramboke, d-patta land, etc., which were falsely ownedwere alienated to the tune of 4850 acres.People who speak English are the people who

rob our lands. The HRF people like BurraRamulu and Balagopal helped us. Up till thattime the villagers did not know how toconduct a struggle. They tried straight awayto physically injure and kill the oppressor.We taught them how to fight for rights, taughtthem about the laws, etc. Bandaru Dattatreya(BJP) also went to support the anti-SEZactivists. In one instance, a mad man who wasa Hanuman bhakta kept tearing off papers ofthe patwaris who were doing surveys for theSEZs. The police threw him into the villagesquare and beat him, but he always got uplaughing. He was asked why he did this – hesaid there was no difference between the landbeing taken and his own home. In theprocess of taking land the police began filingcases against the activists – on all kinds of

subjects, leading to a great deal ofharassment.. In 2008 we got the APHRC topass an order to remove the criminal cases.After this, the SP, the Collector and theadministration began actually pursuing thecases thoroughly. The Congressmen came andsaid they would take us to Sonia Gandhi. Bythe time we got ready she had to go toAmerica for an operation. We lost Rs 1,00,000on the purchase of tickets for 100 people toand fro. Our Kadali Network went to theParliamentary Standing Committee to makeour statement against SEZs. Up till 2009 it waspossible to bring together people fromdifferent caste groups to work togetheragainst SEZs, but after that, the elections cameand caste politics took over and changed thedemocratic basis of the movement.

INTERVIEW WITH ANANTHAPUR VILLAGERSA. SRINIVAS

SIDDIQ – resident of Ananthapur Town

When NTR was chief minister, he laid a foundation stone for an industrial area at Tumukunta village. In 1986, we, a group of 21 farmers from the villageof Tumukunta, went to court and obtained a stay against the government acquisition of 146 acres of land. This was the first zone (SEZ). We made thegovernment agree to 6 conditions. There is the term ‘total compensation’ in these conditions. I don’t know Telugu. No one knows English. We thoughtwe would get Rs 18000 per acre. However, the market value of the land was 12000, which the government reduced to Rs 9000. As a result thecompensation worked out to Rs 15000 per acre. In these six conditions, they also agreed to provide employment to one family member. They also saidthat when acquired land was divided into plots, we could choose our own. In all this, only the one time settlement occurred. We have been fighting inthe High Court since 20 years. We haven’t got the promised job, nor the plot. In 1989, I applied to run a canteen in the APIIC. When I ask them aboutit today, they say there is no record. Since the land agreement was made with the land acquisition officer, who is the Collector, we don’t have anyobligation. The Revenue department say that we are responsible for taking possession of the land, and we don’t have any obligations after that. Theypoint a finger at each other. The APIIC bought the land at Rs 15000 per acre and are now selling the land at Rs 25 Lakhs per acre. It would have beengood if they had at least given us a job. I had 7 acres of land, with a big agricultural well. It was patta land. I had bought the land in 1981. In the landthat was taken from us, only 40% was used for industrialization. 60% of the land is remaining vacant, unused. Recently, 350 acres of land was allottedto the Rahejas. They too have not done anything yet. My son learned fashion design – who will give him a job? We should either get a job, orcompensation for the losses we have incurred through all these years. Since they didn’t pay us the market value at that time, they should give us themarket value now. We demand that they should now give us both land in compensation for the land we have lost, and also compensation for thelosses we have incurred. Even today a group of 21 of us is fighting together. In this group a majority are Dalits.

GANGADHAR MADIGA, MRPS Ananthapur district president

The APIIC forcibly took the assigned land which was in our possession. It sold the land to either the Lepakshi foundation or some other. Howeverneither Lepakshi nor anybody else came to us. I have an acre of land that I have not sold. However, when I went to take a loan, the bankers asked meto get a document stating that the land is in my name. When I went to the survey authorities and looked at the adangal (revenue registry) record for myland on the computer, it was shown as belonging to the Lepakshi hub. The loan taken from the bank remains – it is impossible to renew it. Eventhough the land has been surveyed as belonging to Lepakshi, I have sown a crop here. I procured my investment from the market, and the interest hascompounded. I am not able to return that loan, I can’t renew the loan, I cannot get a bank loan, and I haven’t received the value of the land taken fromme. Even thought the registration has not been completed, the authorities’ records show that the land has been registered in the name of Lepakshi.I had an acre of land which has now been taken away. This land was given to my father. The government and the peoples organizations have not beenable to provide us a perspective on the difficulties that come with the loss of land. We are in a state of having lost our land, even though we know thevalue of land. When a farmer had 5 acres of land, he could take care of himself, and also support the subsistence of 10 labourers. These days, afterwe have lost the land, we are losing the agricultural subsidies given by the government. When the government is spending several thousand croresof rupees on land development, we are not benefiting from it, only the land owners are. We cannot also avail of the subsidies given by the governmentwhen drought occurs without our land. We also cannot avail of the subsidies for tractors and other equipment. We had assigned lands worth Rs20,000 per acre. Now, it is worth Rs 3-4 Lakhs per acre. When it was agricultural land it was possible for farmers to buy and sell among themselves.Today, at this rate, the person called a farmer cannot buy land in his life time.

CHANDRA NAIK, MPTC, Biyan Thanda, Gorantla Mandal Ananthapur District

It was good when we had land. Will money every remain in our hands? We have spent it all. Now, we have neither land nor money. We survive onlabour. We lost 600 acres of land. Many of us didn’t receive money since the survey numbers and title documents were not proper. I lost 7 acres. I stillcontinue to sow that land. I got money for 4 acres – I wasn’t paid for the remaining land since the name was wrong. They are sending us round andround saying this or that isn’t right. We get our money only when we pay up and set the records straight. The MRO promised that all those of us wholost land would be given a job. It is already 3 years. We believed them then, when they said they would construct factories and employ us. We no longerdo. ( From Project Report supported by ACTION AID, A.P. Regional Office )


Initially, the setting up of the Apache

Footwear SEZ, the largest manufacturer of

the Adidas brand of footwear in

Mambattu panchayat of Tada opened up the

possibility of new jobs for a large number of

youth in the surrounding villages in the area,

which would otherwise be inaccessible to

them. Close to 5000 people, mostly, youth,

have been employed in the SEZ which was

notified in August 2006.

Discussions with many youth revealed that

the initial enthusiasm of employment in the

SEZ does not actually last long enough. For

many of these youth, working in an alien and

often unfriendly environment, characterized

by high pressure to meet targets and time-

frames etc only rendered them further

vulnerable to new risks. For women espe-

cially, the unfamiliar dress codes were an

added disadvantage. As Haritha (name

changed), an employee in the Apache SEZ

puts it, “Initially it was tough to get used to

wearing pants to work. We are not used to it

and I often suffered stomach ache. I used to

study and go out on wage work to earn

money. Now, my family is happy to see me

earn better. But they (in the company) are very

strict about work hours and targets. So, there

is constant pressure. I cannot take off from

work whenever I want to. I don’t enjoy the

kind of freedom I had while doing wage work

(cooli panilo unna swecha indulo ledhu)”.

Tulasi, another employee here shared that she

was forced to give up her studies to start

working in the company.

Similarly, Krishna (name changed) an em-

ployee says, “if we do not reach the targets,

there is absolute torture from the supervisors.

We are not given any leave. They would make

us work overtime to reach production targets.

They abuse you in their language and you

cannot say anything. Many leave because of

the torture and pressure. Only those who can

sustain this survive here for a while”. Mahesh,

another employee says, “I worked earlier as a

welder after completing my ITI. I used to earn

Rs.6000/- per month. Your previous education

or experience does not matter to them.”

Vatamati Nagaraju, who had worked in

Apache and left his job shares, “initially we all

felt that the SEZ was good. I worked in the

company and left because I could not work

there. Now, I feel that my family would have

been better off if I had not sold my lands. I

sold 1.5 acres of my land for 14 lakhs. The land

value really went up once the SEZ was

proposed here. The real estate agents from

Chennai persuaded me to sell my lands. They

offered me 14 lakhs, which seemed high but

they in turn sold out the same for 20 lakhs. I

still have 1 acre of land and I will not sell it.

We can at least grow our own food and

survive”. These same sentiments are echoed

by several other youth who share that for the

number of people the company hires, the

number of people leaving is also equally high.

In several instances, inability to meet targets

meant subjection to verbal abuse, mental

harassment, retrenchment from work or in

case of inefficiency and disobedience, transfer

to other departments or plants in the company

such as the rubber plant where workers are

expected to work under extremely high

temperature conditions. Issues such as health

insurance, leave, working overtime, salary

equivalent to work were other issues that

were of concern to these youth working in this

SEZ.

Excerpted from, .S. Seethalakshmi, Special

Economic Zones in Andhra Pradesh Policy Claims

and People’s Experiences . Study supported by

Society for National Integration Through

Rural Development (SNIRD), Ongole and

ACTIONAID, AP Regional Office. Pp 93-94.

(Vangipuram Reddanna, an activist with the

Dalit Bahujan Front, DBF, who has been

working on land and other issues affecting

dalits).

“To me, the central issue in land acquisition is

that of changing values around land. As long

as the land is in the lands of the poor farmers,

it has no value and is often termed as barren,

unproductive or infertile. There is no State

policy favoring subsidies or investments to

support poor farmers to continue with their

farming. There are no banks or formal

institutions extending credit to these farmers.

Along with policies around agriculture, our

entire educational system has no place to

promote positive values around farming or

agriculture. We are therefore not building any

stakes for the next generation to take up

agriculture on the same lands that has sup-

ported their education and nurtured and

nourished their lives. Farming as a whole

stands discredited in our system. But as soon

as these lands are taken over by the govern-

ment and agencies like the APIIC and handed

over to private parties in the name of public

purpose, the same lands gain a new added

value. How is this possible? A whole range of

institutions from banks and others are

competing to offer financial support to these

SEZs. Even years later, when these projects do

not take off, the government is more than

eager to leave these lands in the Lands of the

private players, while lakhs of people depen-

dent on these lands for their survival can

starve and die. We need to question these

shifting values in our system.”

Excerpted from, .S. Seethalakshmi, Special

Economic Zones in Andhra Pradesh Policy Claims

and People’s Experiences . Pp 76-77.

Hope and Disillusionmentfor Workers in ApacheSEZ, Tada, Nellore

S. Seetha Lakshmi

A Case Study

From Farm Landsto Industrial Parks,Growth Centersand SEZs:

Examing theShifting definitionsof Lands.


Land acquisition is one of the most con

tentious aspeccts of the execution of

mega projects such as airports, metro-

rail systems, special economic zones, power

plants, mining, etc. Projects such as these

require huge tracts of land. The land is

acquired either directly by the project

developer or by the state on their behalf.

Without exception this process of acquiring

land from the people is fraught with coercion

and intimidation. Even if there is no coercion,

acquisition invariably leaves the owner of the

land in a disadvantageous position. The state

buys land at market value which is often far

less than the prevailing rates in the region.

Even if a fair price is paid, the conversion of

land type from agricultural or dry land to

industrial land multiplies its value after

acquisition manifold.

The Land Acquisition Act 1894 that regulates

the process of the land acquisition allows the

state to acquire land only for a public purpose

and with due compensation to the party who

is deprived of land. In the past the state was

known for acquiring land to build dams,

railroads, highways, airports, housing for

weaker sections. In these acquisitions, public

purpose was clearly visible as the greater

good of the public. However, the state today

is increasingly seen acquiring property on

behalf of private companies. When private

companies undertake developmental projects

either on their own or in collaboration with

the state, the idea of ‘public purpose’ itself

becomes questionable and controversial. The

frequently raised question is whether a

private company can be assumed to have

public purpose at all. Is it not driven by profits

for furthering of private interests? In the

newly passed Land Acquisition Act 2011, one

of the provisions that is being severely

opposed by critics is that of land acquisition

for private companies.

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stipulates

certain procedures for any acquisition of land

for public purpose. They are notification in the

Gazette and the local media, followed by

enquiries by the collector, declarations that

the land will be resumed by the state and

finally the award of compensation for the

affected persons. A person who is discontented

with the compensation can question the award

in a civil court. Where the state feels there is

urgency, it has the absolute authority to

acquire land without putting the affected

person on notice and bypassing the conduct of

enquiry. In the case of land acquisition for

private companies, a different set of

procedures are stipulated: memorandum of

agreements concerning permissions, the

viability and objectives of the project, and the

payment of compensation by the company.

There are also instances where the state will

completely take upon itself the burden of

compensation.

Litigation on land acquisition matters takes

many forms. There are broadly two types of

disputes: One set comprises disputes related to

the extent of land acquired, market value and

assessment of the land, competing titles in

respect of the land, discrimination in the

amount of compensation awarded, and more

importantly to challenge selective and

prejudiced acquisitions i.e., the dalit man’s

land may be easily acquired while leaving the

land of the more influential persons out. The

second set of issues concerns the procedures to

be adopted by the state in acquiring the land

and hinge on the due process of the law, such

as serving of notices, publication of the

notifications and declarations, the time given

in the conducting of enquiry etc.

Land acquisition has also been contested on

whether its declaration meets the criterion of

public purpose or not, particularly when the

state has acquired it on behalf of a private

company. In this set of cases land owners have

accused the state of acquiring their properties

to transfer them to foreign companies or to

sell it in real estate. They have also questioned

the so called objective of ‘development’, and

asserted that there was no public purpose and

that the state was openly supporting the

vested interests of influential property

dealers.

Apart from statements and pamphlets issued

by protest movements, the contest about the

truth of public purpose claim can be found in

the voluminous case law on the subject. Right

since the early years of our Independence, the

Indian judiciary has been reluctant in allowing

substantial questioning of the state’s decision

to acquire land. The claims that have

succeeded before the law are limited to those

cases where it has been proven that the state

had not followed the due process of law in

acquiring land. Notifications for acquisition of

land have been struck down as invalid

primarily in this register. Rarely ever, have

the courts allowed the citizen to question the

public use, purpose and wisdom of a

particular project that the state has

undertaken.

Precedents in Case law

The State of Bihar vs Kameshwar Singh

reported in AIR 1952 SC 252 is a landmark

judgment on the question of Public Purpose. It

was delivered by a constitutional Bench of

seven judges when Zamindars questioned the

Uttar Pradesh state’s acquisition of land for

land reform. The Supreme Court while

upholding the State’s decision to acquire

Zamindari land for redistribution to tenants

held:

The legislature is the best judge of what is good

for the community, by whose suffrage it comes

into existence and it is not possible for this

court to say that there was no public purpose

behind the acquisition contemplated by the

impugned order….It is difficult to hold in the

present day conditions of the world that

measures adopted for the welfare of the

community and sought to be achieved by

process of legislation so far as the carrying out of

the policy of nationalization of land is concerned

can fall on the ground of want of public purpose.

The phrase “public purpose” has to be

construed according to the spirit of the times in

which particular legislation is enacted and so

construed, the acquisition of the estates has to

be held to have been made for a public purpose.

The above case had the laudable objective of

land reform and redistribution. But case law is

such that it can get cited in later times too, in

different contexts. Sooraram Pratap Reddy and

others vs District Collector reported in (2008)

9 SCC 552 is a case where the Supreme Court

affirmed that it will not interfere with the

government’s decision of what constituted

public purpose. In this case 100 acres of land in

Land acquisitions,law and public purpose

N. Vasudha


Serilingampalli, an adjoining area of

Hyderabad, was sought to be acquired by the

State to develop an Information Technology

Park. The affected persons accused the state of

corruption, malafide exercise of power, sale of

land to foreign companies and procedural

irregularities in the acquisition. The Supreme

Court was steadfast in upholding the

acquisition made by the State and keeping in

line with the spirit of a liberalised economy

the Supreme Court further held that:

The older and stricter view is that unless the

property is dedicated for user by the public at

large or a considerable section thereof, it

would not be for public use or for public

purpose. The modern and more liberal view,

however, is that it is not an essential condition

of public use that the property should be

transferred to public ownership or for public

user and it is sufficient that the public derives

advantage from the scheme.

The above logic was faithfully followed in the

case of the Kakinada Special Economic Zone

wherein the AP High Court upheld the land

acquisition made on behalf of a private

company. It held that the public will derive

advantages from the setting up of the SEZ by

way of generation of foreign exchange and

employment to the people.

Limits of legal remedy

In deciding whether there is public purpose at

all, the position of the courts has been that

there will be some trickle-down effect of

development in terms of public employment.

Despite growing protests and litigation on

this issue, rigorous principles of assessment to

determine whether there is public purpose at

all have not been evolved to check the

decisions of the administration. The case law

on this subject does not reveal any substantial

information about the outcomes of a

development project. Yet the courts have

consistently believed the dubious projections

of public good filed by either the government

or private developers. The courts have limited

themselves to a mild review of administrative

decisions despite growing evidence of

developmental projects not taking off,

environmental degradation and absence of

generation of employment.

The judiciary has never affirmed the people’s

opinion and challenge of the public purpose of

a project undertaken by the State. This is the

view even in the much publicized case

involving Mayawati’s government concerning

its plan of industrial development of the

Greater Noida district. Here the Supreme

Court reprimanded the government and set

aside the Notification of land acquisition on

the ground of procedural irregularities of the

acquisition. Ironically, however, in the tail-

end of the judgment, it observed that the UP

government can still go ahead with the land

acquisition provided that it follows the due

process of law. The land acquisition as such was

not set aside.

There is a steadfast opinion within the

administration and the judiciary that the

affected person is solely interested in the

compensation that he receives. The foreword

to the new land acquisition law states that

land acquisition will become that much more

acceptable, if there is transparency in the

procedures of acquisition, adequate

compensation and extension of compensation

even to those who do not have a title to the

land. The Rehabilitation and Resettlement

provisions in the new land acquisition law are

the evidence of the state’s promise to change

the character of land acquisition in terms of

wider recognition of affected people’s claims

and in some cases making them shareholders

in the future of development.

It is convenient for the State to engage with

the affected person’s protest only in the

register of compensation. There are several

instances where affected people have refused

compensation, even sizeable amounts, on the

ground that they are opposed to the very

model of development, that such a

development will not augur well for their

region, and that nothing can compensate the

price of their displacement. A protest of this

nature challenges the public purpose of the

project in ways that are much broader, and

intractable, than what is allowed before the

law.


Contemporary Significance

The term ‘eminent domain’ has becomeincreasingly common in the mediaduring the past one and a half decades.

It is used to justify the acquisition of land forindustrialization, and more specifically inrelation to the creation of SEZs. ‘EminentDomain’ means the authority of the state toacquire land owned by anybody for ‘publicpurposes’. However when the land is soacquired, the state is obliged to follow duelegal process and pay a just compensation tothe original owner according to the law. Thisprinciple of eminent domain (henceforth ED)and just compensation is usually attributed tothe Seventeenth Century Dutch jurist HugoGrotius.1 However, as we shall see, there is aspecific historical significance to the term incontemporary India.

Why is the term ED being used frequently inthe media today? After all, on the one hand,the state has acquired land since India becameindependent, for development projects likedams, highways, power projects, mining,manufacture and other infrastructure. Thenumber of people displaced by such projectsand their fate are not well recorded. On theother hand, land has been acquired fromzamindars in the name of socialism from the1950s. There have been special legislativeenactments on land ceiling in each state ofIndia for this purpose. These enactments havebeen placed in the Ninth Schedule of theIndian Constitution to ensure that theSupreme Court cannot overturn them. Thus,while the principle of ED has been inoperation, the usage of the term has becomemore frequent in public debate outside thecourtrooms. So to repeat the question, whyhas the usage of the term ED become morefrequent today?

A recent seminar on land acquisition held by athink tank in Delhi had participants fromindustry, ministries, bureaucrats andactivists.2 Reading the proceedings of theseminar provides a few pointers:

1. An important theme of the seminar is thatland that was till now considered waste

land situated in rural and otherwiseinaccessible locations is increasinglyfound to be necessary for industrialexpansion – to build infrastructure likenational highways, railways, ports, dams,power projects, factories, mines and force-fed economic zones of high productivity.We can see that this is a historicalmoment of capitalist growth in India.

2. Another important issue in the seminardiscussions is the difficulty of acquiringland for these essential uses. Land, whichis perhaps the smallest economic cost inthe project is the most difficult to acquire,and is the most tricky, risky and timeconsuming of operations – a clearexample is the upsurge of popularresistance in Singur which forced theTatas to close their project and shift it toGujarat.

3. Another issue that is discussed at lengthin the seminar is that compensation paidto the original owners of land acquiredfor industrialization does not take intoaccount the skyrocketing land prices thatresult. When agricultural land ispurchased and converted into industrialland, the market value goes up sharply.This considerable loss of ‘notional’ saleincome that arises because of the changein the land use category from agriculturalto industrial as soon as it is acquiredinvariably makes the original ownersunhappy.

4. Participants in the seminar point out howgovernment regulations for landacquisition do not have well laid-out andtransparent procedures to calculate justcompensation resulting in confusion,corruption and extensive manipulation onthe ground.

5. The acquisition and compensation leavemany of the people who depend on theland without owning it, bereft of alivelihood. From the perspective ofindustrial development, this leads toinevitable opposition to the process.

6. One of the key problems specific to thetribal areas is that land acquisition formining and other SEZs has resulted inextreme immiseration, and therefore to asurge of support for Maoism in theseareas.

7. In general, land acquisition is a highlyemotive issue. Political instability is areal threat as many different displacementventures across the country havedemonstrated recently. This politicalinstability has the potential to bring theproject to a grinding halt, the Nandigramissue being a key example.

Examining these different causes for worryexpressed in the seminar, it becomes clear thatplanners and investors who want smoothfunctioning of their projects need a resolutionof the difficult problem of land acquisition.Thus, the term ED today is used to signal theproblem of economic security in our stage ofdevelopment recognized alike by bureaucrat,businessman and activist. The discussion ofED is about finding an appropriate, effectiveand ‘humane’ process by which industry maytake land from farmers and other dependentnon-owners who are steeped in a culture thatis both economically dependent on andpassionately attached to land.

In India today, land is the focus of diversedesires, needs and sources of wealth. Therural poor need land for security and peace ofmind in an era of dispossession, displacementand migration; the landlord wants land tospeculate on its value while profiting from itsrent; the government aims to acquire land tomake a handsome profit on sale to theindustry; and industry wants land to make itsprofits. This results in the extremely powerfulforces that are exerted on each landtransaction. In theory and ideally speaking, asthe seminar suggests, government andindustry would like to work together toensure a smooth transaction using ED inacquiring territory and paying thecompensation package in such a way that allthe parties are satisfied. What has beenhappening in practice so far however is thatland acquisition through ED is riddled withmanipulation, corruption and racketeering, allof which cause increasing political instabilitydue to resentment.

Thus what is happening in the background isthat the government is trying to encourage anew culture that willingly sells land to stateand industry at a fair price, thus makingindustrial expansion less vulnerable to massopposition. The debate on ED addresses a keyproblem facing industrial growth andcapitalism in India. The National Land

Eminent Domain:

A background note

R. Srivatsan


Acquisition and Rehabilitation andResettlement Bill, 2011 is very clear on this.

Historical Background and TheoreticalStructure

Eminent domain: sovereignty and government inthe West

If you think about it, the ruler of a land couldalways take what he pleased. In the West thepower of the king or the church over territoryhas been unquestioned. It has been theprinciple of rule since the Middle Ages.However, after the eighteenth century, whenbourgeois democracy begins to take control ofthe state, the king as the nominal head of statebecomes accountable to the ‘people’. Hence,while individuals may not challenge the stateregarding its taking of private property, theymay and do challenge the state’s purpose toensure that the state is not acting despotically.Theoretically, the ‘people’ now become thetrue sovereign rulers who constitute the state’spower. For this reason, in modern democracy,public purpose is seen as the purpose of thenational community (i.e., of ‘the people’) thatexceeds the purpose of any individual. Thusthe principle of ED is a re-assertion of thesovereign’s (king as the head of state’s) power,but at the same time an assertion of hisaccountability to the people. However, theproblem is that the ‘people’ who define publicpurpose are usually the propertied rulingelite, i.e., the bourgeoisie.

Contradiction between the principle of eminentdomain and the concept of private property in statetheory

The term ‘private property’ generally refersboth to immovable property (i.e., land), and toobjects owned (a car, a book, a bag of rice,etc.). The principle of ED usually refers toland. In political and economic theory, theconcept of private property is the foundationof capitalism and the free market: Any markettransaction requires that the seller owns theproperty he wants to sell. Once the saleoccurs, that ownership of the property istransferred to the buyer. This ownership hasto be guaranteed by the state using coercion ifnecessary. If the principle of ownership ischallenged or attacked in practice, the freemarket as a way of distributing goods andservices would collapse, bringing down thecapitalist economy with it.

Thus, ED is the opposite of the right to privateproperty – the king may take what you ownby right. In liberal political theory, there aretwo strands of thinking about the oppositionalrelation between ED and private property.3

One theory says that originally there are

people who own private property. Thesepeople establish a social contract to form astate for their common protection againstcoercion and robbery. Thus private propertyexists prior to the state – its protection is thestate’s duty. This idea is traceable to thephilosopher John Locke (among otherphilosophers). From this perspectivecompulsory acquisition by the state is aviolation of the primary right to property.Individuals have opposed the use ED based onthis theory of the state as a protector of privateproperty, and these battles have a history ofover two hundred years in the West.

On the other hand, there is a critique of theabove theory of private property, traceable toDavid Hume and Jeremy Bentham. Thiscritique may be called a utilitarian argument.They argue of idea that the state as the productof a contract to protect property cannot beproved historically, and also cannot accountfor the obedience of people through thegenerations. The only two explanations forsuch obedience are that a) people obeythrough habit; and b) they obey because thestate continues to do its job. In addition,theoretically, laws needed for the protectionof property cannot exist without theguardianship of the state and its coerciveinstitutions like police, military, prisons, etc.Hence private property cannot exist before thestate exists to guarantee its security.According to the utilitarian position, laws(even property laws) are convenient fictionsthat work in society and there is no divinemystery behind their success. From thisperspective, there is nothing sacred aboutproperty and the state may take it according tothe requirements of public purpose providedit makes just compensation. However,Bentham argued, this should be an exceptionrather than a rule, since arbitrary use of theprinciple may undermine the foundation ofprivate property that is absolutely necessaryfor the functioning of society.

ED is a feature of governments in capitalisteconomies. It doesn’t function in the sameway in communism. Communist thinkingand practice say that planned economiesshould be used to distribute goods accordingto need, thus eliminating the market as themechanism of exchange of goods. Without themarket, private property is theoreticallyunimportant since we are supposed to geteverything we need through the state’sdistribution system without buying it and nobody would own so much as to cause others tocommit crimes. In communism, privateproperty is a primitive source of inequalityand oppression, because everybody gets whatone needs. Private property is thus a concept

that is to be left behind with capitalism whencommunism comes. So in communistthinking, something like eminent domain isthe large horizon of public purpose for alleconomic activity.

Eminent Domain in the context of Colonial India:

When the British colonized India, they werecompletely confused by the system of landownership, rent and revenue that existedbefore them. They could not find any way toextract revenue from agricultural land in thebeginning. Colonial rule in India thus had toestablish the laws of property over the period1750-1900. Thus colonial law first came up asthe system of Zamindari in the BengalPresidency (which modified Mughal laws).Later a different system called Ryotwari wasadopted across the colonial territories. Thereare of course several other land tenurepatterns that survived. It was only throughthese processes of regulation that the Britishbegan to earn revenue and exert power overthe natives in India. Thus, in British India, theargument about the state emerging as theresult of a contract of property owners isnotably absent. Land ownership is a historicalfiction, constructed through colonial rule andwhich lives on to have powerful practicaleffects. In this historical context, the LandAcquisition Law of 1894 is a statement of thepre-eminent domain of colonialism.

Looked at from this long range historicalperspective, the impasses faced by landacquisition for industrialization in the twenty-first century carry our legacy of property lawsin colonialism and are shaped by our historyas a development state. They are an outcomeof the pressures of neoliberalism on thishistory. The increased media use of the term‘eminent domain’ is a symptom of theseimpasses.

Notes:

1 See Wikipedia entry on ‘Eminent Domain’.Also see Encyclopedia Britannica entry on“The Classical Rules of Property”.

2 Mega Project Development: Issues in LandAcquisition, ORF Seminar Series, Vol 1, Issue 5,July 2010. © Observer Research Foundation.,New Delhi. Available online: http://www.observerindia.com/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/orfseminarseries/attachments/semi_issue5_1281074041099.pdfAccessed on 23rd August 2011.

3 See Nicholas Mercuro & Warren J. Samuels,eds., The Fundamental Interrelationships BetweenProperty and Government (JAI Press, 1999).Also, Jeremy Waldron, The Right to PrivateProperty, (Clarendon Press, 1990).


In the late 1970s, China, still a developing

country three decades after a revolution

ary regime change in 1949, was in dire

need of systemic change. The decade-long

debacle of the Cultural Revolution had just

ended, leaving the economy dormant and the

people physically and emotionally drained. At

that time the new idea of opening the country

to global contacts and influences after three

decades of partly self-imposed isolation

seemed a no less drastic measure to China’s

leaders than the original policy of economic

and social closure. Other new ideas were

emerging as well. Deng Xiaoping, the chief

architect of China’s open policy and economic

reforms launched in 1978, outlined a

fundamentally new approach to gradual

societal change:

. . . I am of the view that we should allow some

regions, some enterprises, some workers and

farmers, who because of hard work and good

results achieved, to be better rewarded and

improve on their livelihood . . . [T]hey will

engender powerful demonstrative effects on

their neighbors and lead people in other regions,

work units to follow their examples. In this way,

the national economy will, wave-like, surge

forward, with all the people becoming relatively

well-off. (Deng Xiaoping)

Although Deng’s recommendation by all

accounts applied to no specific context, it

nonetheless was embodied in a series of

reforms and policy initiatives. In November

1978, farmers in Xiaogang, a small village in

Anhui Province, pioneered the “contract

responsibility system,” which was

subsequently recognized as the initial impetus

for far-reaching and ultimately successful

rural reforms in China (e.g., see South China

Morning Post, November 17, 2008, A8). The

following month, the Third Plenum of the

11th Congress of the Chinese Communist

Party adopted the Open Door Policy, and in

July 1979, the Party Central Committee

decided that Guangdong and Fujian provinces

should take the lead in conducting economic

exchanges with other countries and

implementing “special policies and flexible

measures.” By August 1980, Shenzhen, Zhuhai,

and Shantou within Guangdong Province

were designated as special economic zones

(SEZs), followed by Xiamen in Fujian Province

in October 1980. The term “special economic

zone” was selected after considerable semantic

discussion and intellectual debate, with SEZs

being conceptualized as a complex of related

economic activities and services rather than

unifunctional entities. SEZs in China thus

differed from export processing zones and

similar special areas in Asia by being more

functionally diverse and covering much larger

land areas.

DIVERGENT DEVELOPMENT PATHS

The SEZs were established primarily to attract

foreign direct investment (FDI), expand

China’s exports, and accelerate the infusion of

new technology. The four SEZs established in

1980 were quite similar in that they comprised

large areas within which the objective was to

facilitate broadly based, comprehensive

development. They were encouraged to

pursue pragmatic and open economic policies,

serving as a testing ground for innovative

policies that, if proven effective, would be

implemented more widely across the country.

The emphasis on forward linkages with the

world, especially through liberalization of

foreign investment and trade relations with

capitalist countries, and backward linkages

with different parts of China, was very much

the rationale for their establishment.

[...]

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE OUTLOOK

After a hesitant but historic start, the People’s

Republic of China turned its back on its first

three decades of “walking on two legs” and

decided in 1978 to open to the world and

subsequently establish five special economic

zones as windows and laboratories to test new

and innovative policies and measures. As

experience has shown, this proved a tentative

but sure way forward, given the uncertainties

that prevailed both in China and the world at

the time. By 2008, three decades after

launching of the reforms, China’s decision to

focus on economic rather than political

development, and on a gradualist approach

symbolized by the establishment of the SEZs,

can be judged a success. The country today is a

world economic powerhouse. Nonetheless,

the current global financial turmoil has not

left the country unscathed. China’s export

machine has decelerated following the sharp

downturn of the American and European

economies. However, the fact that its financial

system remains only partially open and

integrated with the world has, at least over the

near term, allowed China extra

maneuverability in its efforts to steer clear of

the storm. The country’s leaders also have

taken a series of recent measures to strengthen

China’s economy and, with the world’s largest

foreign reserves, it is in a relatively good

position to adjust to the changing global

situation.

One concern no doubt felt in the SEZs is that

the migrant labor that has been driving their

growth machine over the past 30 years is now

facing the prospect of unemployment, after

thousands of factories have closed for a

variety of reasons since early 2008. The Pearl

River Delta area has been particularly hard

hit, as many of the factories established in

earlier times were of a labor-intensive and/or

polluting character, and were already slated

for upgrading, relocation, or closure. In the

first nine months of 2008, some 50,000 out of 1

million industrial enterprises in Guangdong

Province had collapsed, and its 30 million

migrant workers are inevitably affected Times

(Singapore)), November 15, 2008). Many have

returned to their home villages in other

provinces, which would be deprived of the

economic benefits derived from the

China’s Special

Economic Zones at 30Yue-man Yeung, Joanna Lee, and Gordon Kee


remittances of these workers. There will be an

adjustment process in migrants’ areas of

origin and destination, but to the SEZs, the

extent of the impact will depend largely on

the nature of their industrial production and

the number of migrants involved. Shenzhen,

for example, is relatively well positioned to

face the new situation given its high-tech

orientation and the strength of its economy.

Given its stellar economic growth over the

past 30 years, China owes much (but certainly

not all) to the demonstration effect provided

by its five SEZs, which as this paper has shown

pioneered many innovative policies and

practices that had a truly revolutionary impact

on the country’s economic transformation.

However, a recent reviewer of China’s rapid

growth has argued that success since 1978 also

has been due in no small part to the legacy of

infrastructure and industrial development

remaining from the Mao regime.

The fortuitous nexus of domestic

circumstances and the global environment

was another factor in China’s favor. In 1978,

with China’s people deeply disillusioned by

the decade-long Cultural Revolution, the

country’s leadership was ready to try almost

anything that promised better prospects for

improving the public welfare. As it turned

out, this “worst time” was the best time for

change in China, in terms of the external

economic situation: globalization was

gathering momentum at precisely the time

that export-oriented manufacturing began to

be developed in the SEZs. Through global

production chains, China’s opening afforded it

the opportunity to enter the world market in

manufactured goods, in turn facilitating urban

and regional change within the country.

The consequent rise of Shenzhen shattered

many records for economic and urban growth,

not just for China but the world. Whereas the

SEZs were “special” by virtue of the exclusive

policies and other privileges extended them in

the early years, by 1992 these favorable

policies had spread to many other parts of

China. By 2001, the “special” aura that might

still be associated with SEZs was further

diluted by China’s admission to the WTO,

which bound all parts of the country to the

same set of rules for liberalizing trade and

opening to foreign investment. Thus, “special”

attributes that are associated with the SEZs

today are a legacy of past policy and reflect

internal strengths. Nonetheless, the

contribution of the zones to accelerating

economic growth within China by

popularizing new policies, marketing capital

flows, and spreading successful new practices

and policies cannot be overlooked or

underestimated.

Looking forward, it is important for the SEZs

to follow Shenzhen’s example of actively

exploring new ways of administrative

cooperation and integration within a wider

territorial and regional context. The focus of

attention in the years ahead should be on how,

through administrative restructuring and

innovative thinking, to make their respective

regions more open to foreign participation,

competitive growth, and sustainable

development. The recently approved planning

guideline for developing the Greater Pearl

River Delta is a step in the right direction.

If the SEZs in 1980 stood at the threshold of a

period of rapid economic growth attributable

to a new way of initiating economic

development in urban areas, 2008 may have

signaled the beginning of another period of

growth focused on the Chinese countryside. In

October 2008 at the Third Plenum of the 17th

Party Congress, a potentially important

decision was announced with respect to rural

land. Whereas China’s rapid post-1987 urban

development can be traced to the historic

auction of land development rights in

Shenzhen, the new policy of allowing farmers

to subcontract, lease, or exchange rural land-

use rights may unharness some of the

immense development potential attending the

circulation of rural land assigned a market

value. This could affect an even greater

portion of China’s land and population than

did the SEZ reforms. At face value, one might

consider this new policy statement as

signaling the belated arrival in China’s rural

areas of the same “development impulse” that

led to the creation of the SEZs some three

decades earlier. As such, the conditions may

finally be falling into place for China to

effectively address the goal of balanced

national development recently reaffirmed in

the 11th Five-Year. Plan’s goal of “a

harmonious socialist society.” However, the

SEZs, and Shenzhen in particular, may also be

called to play an additional role in the

achievement of the latter goal. As vanguards

in the quest for modernization and

development, Shenzhen and its surrounding

Guangdong Province also can be considered as

positioned at the leading edge of the social

and political challenges attending China’s

rapid economic development—i.e., as

locations where future reforms needed to

support and perpetuate economic progress are

first most clearly evident. Some have

speculated that, under the direction of

Guangdong Party Secretary Wang Yang (a

close associate of China’s President Hu Jintao),

She as the country’s first “special political

zone,” in which political reforms in both

inter-party and grassroots democracy are

tested before dissemination elsewhere in the

country. A draft proposal for “Shenzhen’s

Future Reform” was recently posted on the

Shenzhen municipal government’s website,

including such proposals as direct election of

deputies to district people’s congresses as well

as mayoral elections (ibid.). Thus Shenzhen

(and perhaps other special zones) may again

act as the seedbed for a reform impulse, this

time one focusing on political and social

change. pp.222-237

[...]

Excerpted from Eurasian Geography and

Economics, 2009, 50 No.2 pp 222-240

Note on the guest editors :

Professor K. Srinivasulu teaches Political Sciene in Osmania University. He has done research on Special Economic Zones.

N. Vasudha is a practicing lawyer at the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and in the family and labour courts.


Sir,

After reading the November 2010 Vol.No.1 of

the quarterly Broad Sheet on Contemporarly

Politics, I am sending herewith my comments.

The Muslim perspective about Hyderabad’,

“Do Not Hurt Self-respect” and ‘Half Truths

and Misconceptions’ and your editorial really

amazed me. It appears that anything can be

proved by a mix of partial truths, untruths and

plain lies.

The White Christian Europeans story in South

Africa is about various waves of conquest,

enslavement and conversion of the natives.

The natives have had their own kingdoms,

kings, societies, faiths and beliefs. By force and

inducement more than 90% of those

conquered had been converted to Christianity.

After 300-400 years of rule, White Christian

European origin minority of less than 9% of

the population had to abdicate power and the

black majority rule was ushered in 1994. The

rule of the black majority could come after

decades of struggle including violence and

terrorism.

Was the rule of Muslims in the erstwhile state

of Hyderabad and in the rest of the country

different from that of the White Christian

South Africans? Just as the European settlers

conquered and settled down in South Africa,

so did various Islamic invaders and their

armies in India. Therefore the Muslims who

ruled parts of India are just like the erstwhile

ruling White European origin Christian

people.

South African Whites have not asked

reservations for themselves having ruled and

looted that country for hundreds of years. It is

inconceivable that a really educated, cultured,

civilized group becomes backward within a

few years of loss of its rule (in India)!

A plain untruth is mentioned that the matter

of accession of the Hyderabad state was being

discussed in the UN. This is a total lie. Nizam

arranged to take this issue to the security

council through Syria-another Islamic country.

Neither was it discussed, nor did the UN

intervene.

It is asked how the accession of Hyderabad to

India was different from the accession of 500

and odd princely states. It is totally different.

No armies were required to be sent there,

some of them were very happy, some of them

had to be persuaded but not a single shot was

fired. Only Junagadh and Kashmir were the

problems. In the case of Hyderabad there was

Stand Still Agreement because the Nizam did

not make up his mind. India was generous to

offer it. The other princely states voluntarily

acceded to the India Union. So their accession

is not celebrated as Liberation Day. The

people were liberated from Razakars and

from the communal anti-Hindu rule of the

Nizam.

It is not true to say that the people were happy

with the Nizam’s rule and there was

communal peace. It was true for Muslims and

their collaborators. The people is general were

oppressed and enslaved that was why they

took up arms under communists. The local

languages were not the official language; the

language of a 10% of the people was forcibly

made the medium of instruction. How this

was different from the imposition of English

by the British? Also 90% jobs were denied to

the 90% of the people and given to the 10%

belonging to the ruler’s faith. Does it show

equal or just treatment of the people of Islam

and Hindu faiths? Similarly, it is said that

Nizam gave up his own land to the state of

Andhra Pradesh without compensation. Did

the Nizam buy those lands? The revenues

from those lands was not going to the state of

Hyderabad but to the Nizam’s person.

It was magnanimous for the Nizam not to

destroy the temple in the High Court

premises but how about the tens of hundreds

of temples which has been razed to the ground

not only in Hyderabad but more or less all

over India. How is it that on the very site or

very adjacent to the site where Rama and

Krishna are believed by crores of Hindus to

have been born, there are masjids?

Mention is made of the massacre of a large

number of Muslims in the wake of the

liberation. This is a total lie. Nizams armed

forces and Razakars resisted the advance of the

Indian armies and died in the fighting. It is

quite possible that the people whose wives

and daughters had been raped, abducted and

forcibly converted by Razakars, out of

vengeance had killed Razakars. Bestiality was

returned by bestiality which of course was

wrong. India should have established truth

and reconciliation commissions as done by

Peru and South Africa.

The Muslim population in India has increased

from 10% to between 15-20% while Hindus,

Sikhs and Buddhists had been squeezed out of

the Islamic states carved out of India. If they

are oppressed they would not be proliferating

in India. Yet they are denying their anti-Hindu

past, and are inventing a history of negation,

suppressing facts and creating lies.

Finally, it is not healthy to nurture revanchist

ideas. The time of princes or Navabs and rule

by the sword has gone. Even in Muslim

countries like Algeria, Egypt, Syria and

Yemen the people are rising against their

autocratic rulers. Instead of recalling and

glorying the past, people belonging to all

faith and languages should treat this country

as their motherland. None should think that

their language and religion are superior to

others. Democracy does not confer rights to

groups but to individuals. Tolerance does not

mean respect for a group when it is in

minority and intolerance for the faith of the

others

Signed

T. Hanuman Chowdary

Responses to theBroadsheet on the Nizam

Letter to the Editor


More than sixty years have passedsince the erstwhile HyderabadState joined the Indian Union on

17th September, 1948. Yet shrill cries ofMuslim and Hindu Communalists andcommunists on their own role and whathappened before and after that day, obscurethe history of Hyderabad. Historians who arebent upon bending history to their ideologicalinclinations are in fact vulgarizing it, whatever eminence has been conferred upon themby their vulgar political friends.

The seventh and last ruling Nizam Mir OsmanAli Khan’s rule (1911-1948) was marked by anumber of far reaching political andadministrative measures. Given the unevennature of the Deccan Plateau emphasis waslaid on tank irrigation. Initiatives on theTungabhadra Project, the Nandi Konda projecton the Krishna and Godavari valley project onthe Godavari and Nizam Sagar project wereundertaken. But with the merger of the stateinto the Indian Union and later the formationof Andhra Pradesh, new and unexpecteddevelopments changed the Krishna projecttotally and stalled the Godavari project. TheKrishna project, designed to meet the needs ofdrought prone districts of Nalgonda andMahaboob Nagar was redesigned by theAndhra rulers to meet the greed of the alreadyirrigated areas of Guntur and Krishna districtsleaving Nalgonda and Mahaboob Nagar highand dry.

The Nizam established a modern university,Osmania University, with an innovative stepby using Urdu as the medium of instruction atall levels. There was some resentment againstit because a huge majority of people spokeTelugu, Marathi and Kannada. Yet today whenone looks back one feels that after all Urduwas the product of Deccani Language, alanguage composed of Telugu, Marathi,Kannada and Hindustani elements. Certainlyit was not a foreign language nor thelanguage of only Muslims. One must thereforeadmire the courage and imagination of theNizam in deciding to use an Indian languagefor education, the first of its kind in modernIndia. The Andhra elites, culturally andpolitically subjugated by the British, havetypically failed to understand the implicationsof such a bold step.

The Nizam established an agriculture college,a medical college, three science colleges, a

fine arts college and an Arts & commercecollege in the capital and three arts andsciences colleges at three district headquartersof Warangal, Gulbarga and Aurangabad. Ahuge library and a translation bureau was alsoestablished. After the formation of AndhraPradesh most of these institutions have beeneither hijacked or destroyed turningTelangana into an educationally backwardarea.

Probably the world’s first free healthcaresystem was created during the last Nizam’srule with the establishment of OsmaniaHospital, Victoria Maternity and KotiHospitals in Hyderabad and at least onehospital in each district. All these catered tothe needs of the poor and middle classes. Allthese institutions have been totally destroyedby Andhra rulers who are busy patronizingand promoting five star hospitals leaving thepoor and the middle classes in lurch. Anotherbig step was taken by the Nizam to providejustice system to the people with theestablishment of a modern High Court. TheHyderabad water supply and drainagesystems were created to provide basicamenities to the people of Hyderabad.

Till then, Hyderabad was peaceful despite therise of Majlis-e-Itehad-ul-Muslimeen (MIM)under the leadership of Bahadur Yar Jung whocoined the expression ‘ Anal-Malik’ – we (theMuslims) are the rulers; and Arya Samaj withan aim of converting the entire world to vedicDharma. At the same time the Congress partybecame active, and socialist and communistmovements took birth. Two other movementswere also born, the Mulki league demandingjobs for the locals and the Gond tribal revoltin Adilabad led by Komram Bheem, against acallous feudal system. The Nizamimmediately took steps. Germananthropologist, Haimendorf was asked tolook into the tribal problems and the MulkiRules came into existence giving primacy forgovernment jobs to locals. Latter the Andhrarulers did away with the Mulki Rules evenafter the Supreme Court had upheld it.

How ever, the Hyderabad State was overtakenby political crisis which began in 1940 andcontinued till 1948. This period was largelymarked by the effect of national politics onHyderabad. By 1940 the storm clouds werevery much visible on the Indian politicalhorizon. The Muslim League supported by

communists, was demanding partition oncommunal grounds. Between 1940 and 1946large scale communal riots had broken out inBengal, Bihar and Punjab. The biggestmigration of human history took place andGandhiji was murdered. In Hyderabad theHyderabad State Congress launchedsatyagraha demanding merger with the IndianUnion. The socialist affiliated HyderabadStudents Union and the communist affiliatedAll Hyderabad Students Federation launchedthe Quit College movement in 1947demanding a responsible and democraticgovernment. On the other hand MIM under anew and more fanatical leadership of QasimRazvi spawned a communal, criminal outfitcalled Razakars (Volunteers), carrying gunsand sporting a sort of military uniform toprotect Hyderabad State. In the meantimesocialists and communists had launchedarmed struggles against feudal lords andRazakars.

The Nizam who was once hostile to the MIMcame under its pressure. Two Prime Ministers,Mirza Ismail and Nawab Chattari were forcedto resign under MIM pressure and Laiq Aliwas appointed. Between 1946 to 1948 morethan 5000 people mostly Hindus, communistsand socialists had been killed by Razakars.During this period the Nizam maintained asphinx like silence. The storm that had beengathering since 1940 had burst. The dream ofa feudal but welfare state was shattered whenSardar Patel, India’s home minister orderedthe Indian army to march into Hyderabad. Themilitary action (or Police Action) wasfollowed by the killing of more than 6000Muslims mostly in Marathi and Kannadaareas.

Falsification of history by Hindu and Muslimcommunalists and communists cannot erasethe good work done by the last Nizam. Therichest in those days had not even built apalace for himself. A sizeable amount ofmoney owned by him went to institutions likethe Banaras Hindu University, the AligarhMuslim University, for the publication ofcomplete Ramayan, for spreading education,providing primary health care and judicialservices to the common people.

The only bright period for the people ofHyderabad State after 1946 was from 1952 to1956, when the most progressive Land ReformAct in modern Indian history, the HyderabadTenancy Act, was passed and partlyimplemented. The formation of AndhraPradesh against the recommendations of FazalAli Commission stalled the implementationof the act resulting in the Naxalite movement.

If the seventh Nizam had any faults, that werethe faults of the age in which he lived anddied, and he paid dearly for them. But let usremember today the good that he had done.

Hyderabad before and after 17th

September, 1948

Keshav Rao Jadhav

broadsheet on contemporary politics · implementation has been the question of land acquisition....

Documents